JUDGMENT Radha Mohan Prasad, J. In this writ application the have challenged the validity of the order dated 26.8.82, passed by the Director of Consolidation, Bihar, Patna, whereby and whereunder Chak nos. 89 and 99 have been allowed in favour of the concerned respondents. 2. It is contended by Mr. Singh, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner that is course of the proceedings pending before the Director, Consolidation a report was called for by him from the Consolidation officer, in regard to the stage of the scheme. The consolidation Officer, pursuant to the aforesaid order of the Director, submitted reports, which have been annexed as anndures 4 and 4At petitioner stand on R.S. plot nos. 408 and 409 measuring 20 decimals forming part of chak no.89. It is further stated that the said. According to the learned Counsel for the petitioners the aforementioned Chak no. 89 contained major holding of the petitioner and Chak no. 89 contained tubewell and or orchards of the petitioners but the consolidated authorities however, without following the norms laid down in the provisions contained in section 11(d) and 11(e) of the Bihar Consolidation of Holdings & Prevention of Fragmentation Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') allotted the aforementioned chaks in favour of the respondents. 3. By now it is well settled that the writ Court normally cannot go into the disputed question of facts. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondent no.5 the basis claimed for allotment of Chaks by the petitioners has been seriously disputed. However, the learned counsel for the petitioners point out that in paragraph 4 of the counter affidavit it is admitted that the boring of the wri two plots can be well given the writ petitioners in lieu of which respondent nos. 4 to 6 can be given the land allotted to the petitioner. 4. In view of the said stand of respondent no. 5, learned Counsel for the petitioners contends that the matter may be remanded back to the Director of Consolidation for re-consideration. 5. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and considering the aforementioned facts and circumstances, this writ petition is disposed of with the direction to the petitioners to approach the Director of Consolidation for re-consideration of the matter in the light of the above stand of respondent no.5 within one month from today. 5. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and considering the aforementioned facts and circumstances, this writ petition is disposed of with the direction to the petitioners to approach the Director of Consolidation for re-consideration of the matter in the light of the above stand of respondent no.5 within one month from today. If such the Director of Consolidation then he shall reconsider the claim of the petitioners as stated above and pass fresh order without being prejudiced by the impugned order passed by him earlier.