Judgment Radha Mohan Prasad, J. 1. In this writ application the prayer of the petitioners is to quash the order of the director of Consolidation, Bihar, Patna (Respondent No.2) dated 30-10-1984 in revision case No.966 of 1978 setting aside the order dated 30-8-78, passed by the Deputy Director, Consolidation (Respondent No.3) in Consolidation appeal No.61/77-78 and thereby affirming the order dated 14-11-77 passed by the Consolidation Officer, udwantnagar in the District of Bhojpur (Respondent No 4) in Consolidation case No.276/1945-76-77 purporting to be under Sec.12-A (2) of the Bihar consolidation of Holdings and Prevention of Fragmentation Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as the Act ). 2. In short, the case of the petitioners is that they and respondent no.5 are stated to be members of the joint Hindu family. Respondent No.5 was Karta of the family consisting of petitioners also till 1968, when the lands of the family were divided for the purpose of agriculture. On 9-5-51 one surya Bansh Singh, a pattidar of the petitioners and respondent No.5 executed a registered deed of gift with respect to 5.31 acre of land comprising of several plots of old Khata No.191. It is stated that respondent No.5 being the Karta of the family blended the gifted lands with the ancestral lands of the family and the petitioners as well as respondent No.5 came into joint possession and continued as such. During the last revisional survey Khata No.109 was carved out of old khata No.191 and it was recorded in the name of respondent No.5 and Sant Bilash Rai, father of the petitioners. Although fathers name of the petitioners was Sant Bilash rai, by mistake in the Khatian Basant and Bilas were written in place of Sant bilash Rai. The Khatian was finally published in the year 1970, in which the lands in question were recorded jointly in the name of respondent No.5 and sant Bilas Rai, despite objection filed by respondent No.5 under Sec.103-A of the Bihar Tenancy Act (hereinafter referred to as the B. T Act ). Respondent No.5 filed petition under Section 108 of the B. T. Act and on the said petition suit No.28/72 was started in the court of Asst. Settlement Officer, arrah. However, during the pendency of the suit a consolidation proceeding was started and the said suit abated. 3. Respondent No.5 filed petition under Section 108 of the B. T. Act and on the said petition suit No.28/72 was started in the court of Asst. Settlement Officer, arrah. However, during the pendency of the suit a consolidation proceeding was started and the said suit abated. 3. In the consolidation proceedings the lands were recorded in the joint names of Sant Bilas Rai and respondent no.5 and registers of land and statement of principles were published under section 9-A of the Act. Admittedly, no objection under Sec.10 (2) of the act was filed by respondent No.5 and accordingly Chak No.69 was recorded in the joint name of Sant Bilash Singh and Nathuni Rai (respondent No.5 ). It appears that respondent No.5 filed an objection under Sec.12-A (2) of the act, upon which case No.192/75 was started and the Consolidation Officer rejected the said objection in exercise of the power under Sec.12-A (1 ). In the said case the petitioners claimed to have filed an application for substitution of their names after the death of sant Bilas Singh, which was allowed vide order dated 12-11-75 in respect of khata no.69/109. A true copy of the said order has been annexed as annexure-7. 4. On 26-2-75 respondent No.5 filed an objection purporting to be under Sec.12-A (1) of the Act before the Consolidation Officer, Udwantnagar praying therein that the name of Sant Bilas Singh be deleted from Chak No.69 and also praying for making certain changes in the recording of some plots in the name of Sant Bilas singh. The Consolidation Officer, by his order dated 15-1-77 (annexure-4)rejected the said objection of respondent No.5 being barred by time and also on the ground that on earlier occasion objection of respondent No.5 was already dismissed. Respondent No.5 filed appeal No.276/47 of 76-77 under Sec.37-A of the Act against the aforesaid order dated 15-1-77, in which the Deputy Director, Consolidation, bhojpur remanded the case to Consolidation Officer, udwant Nagar on 29-8-77. Thereafter, the Consolidation officer, Udwantnagar heard the objection of respondent no.5 and on 14-11-79 ordered for deletion of the name of the petitioners from Khata No.69/109, in respect of which it is alleged that the order was passed without making any enquiry or local inspection. Against the said order, the petitioners filed appeal before the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Bhojpur being appeal No.61/77/78, in which the Dy. Against the said order, the petitioners filed appeal before the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Bhojpur being appeal No.61/77/78, in which the Dy. Director, consolidation directed the Consolidation Officer, Udwantnagar to hold local inspection and submit his report. The report was submitted by the Consolidation Officer on 13-7-78, in which it is claimed that he supported the case of the jointness of the petitioners with nathuni Rai. The Dy. Director, Consolidation vide order dated 30-8-78 allowed the appeal and set aside the order dated 14-11-77 of the Consolidation Officer, Udwantnagar and rejected the case of respondent No.5 against which he filed a revision case No.966/78 before the Director of Consolidation, who by the impugned order allowed the revision and set aside the order of the dy. Director, Consolidation and upheld the order of the Consolidation Officer. 5. A counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondent No.5. In the said counter-affidavit the case of respondent No.5 is that by a registered deed of gift (Bakshish name) bearing no.2484 dated 9-5-51 a total area of 6.02 acres of land in Cadestral Survey (old) khata Nos.35, 191 and 193 situated in village Khalisa, P. S. Udwantnagar Sadar Division Arrah was gifted by Suryabansh Rai to him, as he was his Nati as a sole donee. According to the said respondent, out of the lands aforesaid those comprised under C. S. Khata No.35 (1.96 acres) and 191 (4.09 acres) are in dispute. Lands under C. S. Khata No.193 are not in dispute as separate Khata No.28 has been recorded in his name only for the same. He further claims that he came to be in actual physical and cultivating possession of the land in question and got his name registered on mutation as a raiyat in the Jamindari serista and paid regularly rents to the ex-intermediaries, and thereafter he has been paying rents of land to the State of Bihar and getting rent receipt for the same. He has also claimed that he has been paying canal water rents and getting receipt for water rates and purchase as the land was gifted to him only. As regards other aforementioned facts stated in the writ-petition there appears to be no dispute. 6. Mr. He has also claimed that he has been paying canal water rents and getting receipt for water rates and purchase as the land was gifted to him only. As regards other aforementioned facts stated in the writ-petition there appears to be no dispute. 6. Mr. Dinu Kumar, learned Counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the impugned orders passed by the director and the Consolidation Officer purporting to be under Sec.35 and section 12-A (2) of the Act is bad in law and is fit to be set aside, inasmuch as, according to the learned Counsel once the respondent No.5 did npt file any objection in terms of section 10 (2) of the Act, the objection under Sec.12 was not maintainable in view of the provisions relating to bar to objection contained in Sec.10-A of the Act. According to the learned Counsel, the director also had no power to entertain the objection of respondent No.5 in the revision filed before him, which was barred under Sec.10-A. As such, according to him, none of the impugned prders can be sustained. 7. None has appeared on behalf of the concerned respondents. As the states interest is not involved, the learned Counsel for the State has neither opposed this writ petition, nor supported the contentions raised on behalf of the petitioner. 8. Section 12 of the Act deals with the publication of draft consolidation scheme by the Asst. Consolidation Officer, who is required to give a general notice that all the raiyats may obtain the relevant extract of the scheme free of cost and under sub-section (2) any person, whose right or interest is sunstancetially prejudiced or affected by the draft consolidation scheme or, who, disputes the propriety or correctness or the entries in the draft consolidation scheme or the extracts furnished therefrom, may within 30 days of the date of publication of the scheme file an objection before the Asst. Consolidation Officer stating the nature of his interest or right in or over any land; the manner in which such interest or right is likely to be adversely affect and the amount and particulars of his claim to the amounts, if any, for such interest or right. Consolidation Officer stating the nature of his interest or right in or over any land; the manner in which such interest or right is likely to be adversely affect and the amount and particulars of his claim to the amounts, if any, for such interest or right. In the provision the right to file objection has been made subject to the provisions contained in Sec.10-A. Under Sec.10-A, no question in respect of any entry made in the map or register prepared under Sec.9 or the statement of principles prepared under Sec.9-A relating to the consolidation area, which might or ought to have been raised under Sec.10, but has not been raised, cannot be raised or heard at any subsequent stage of the consolidation proceeding. Undisputedly the claim of the respondent No.5 was based on the bakshishnama, which was executed in his favour much before the preparation of map or register under Sec.9 or statement of principles under Section 9-A relating to the consolidation area, in which the land in question is situated. 9. Thus, there cannot be any dispute that respondent No.5 ought to have raised objection under Section 10 (2), but did not avail that opportunity and allowed the finalisation of the scheme to be complete. The remedy under Sec.12 to file objection against the draft scheme being subject to the bar contained in Sec.10-A, in my opinion, it has rightly been contended by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the said objection could not have been entertained by the Consolidation Officer. 10. As regards the revisional power of the Director of consolidation under section 35 of the Act, only recently in the case of Shambhunath Pandey and others V/s. State of Bihar and others, reported in 1996 (2) B. L. J.141, dealing with the scope and power of Sec.35 in the light of the Supreme Court decision in the case of Ramdular V/s. Dy. Director of Consolidation, Jaunpur and others, reported in J. T.1994 (3) S. C.341, i hold that the power of the Director of consolidation under Sec.35 of the act is not so wide to usurp the jurisdiction and function of the original authority as a fact-finding authority by appreciating for itself of the facts de novo. Director of Consolidation, Jaunpur and others, reported in J. T.1994 (3) S. C.341, i hold that the power of the Director of consolidation under Sec.35 of the act is not so wide to usurp the jurisdiction and function of the original authority as a fact-finding authority by appreciating for itself of the facts de novo. It was further held in the said judgment that the object of Sec.35 of the Act is to empower the Director of consolidation to see that the subordinate courts are not acting arbitrarily and illegally in exercise of their jurisdiction, but not to assume to itself the jurisdiction of the original authority as a fact-finding authority by appreciating for itself of the facts de novo. 11. It is true that Sec.35 of the act gives power to the Director of consolidation to call for and examine the record of any case decided or proceedings taken by such authorities on his own motion or on the application of any party or on reference being made for the purpose of satisfying himself as to the irregularity of the proceeding or as to the correctness, illegality or propriety of any order passed by such authority in the case of proceeding. But it is difficult to hold that such power can be exercised by the Director of Consolidation under the said provision, which is barred under Sec.10-A. 12. From the entire scheme of the act I find that there is complete bar for raising any question in respect of any entry made in the map or register prepared under Sec.9 or the statement of principles prepared under Sec.9-A relating to consolidation area, except as provided under Sec.108, which relates to changes and transactions affecting rights or interest recorded in revised records and Section 10-D which provides special power regarding re-publication of register of lands in case of substantial number of raiyats and under-raiyats for sufficient and unavoidable reasons could not avail of the opportunity to place their claims under sub-section (2) of Sec.10. Accordingly, i hold that the impugned orders cannot be sustained and they are hereby quashed. 13. In the result, the writ application is allowed, but without costs. Petition Allowed.