Judgment B. P. Singh, J. 1. Heard counsel for the parties. 2. It is not disputed that one Gajraj singh had l/4th share in the lands recorded in his name. By an oral gift, he gifted 56 dacimals of land appertaining to Khasra No.1725 (old) and 2280 (new) to his daughter. The gift is said to have taken place long ago and, according to the petitioners, since the value was less than Rs.100/- the oral gift was permissible. However, it is not in dispute that the plot in question stood recorded in the names of the sons of gajraj Singh. Consolidation proceeding was notified in the village in question by a notification dated 27-5-76. Petitioners 1 to 3 who were sons of the daughter of gajraj Singh filed an objection under section 10 (1) of the Bihar Consolidation of Holdings and Prevention of fragmentation Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) claiming the plot of land as belonging to their mother and contending that the same was wrongly recorded in the names of the sons of gajraj Singh. The aforesaid sons of Gajraj Singh appeared in the proceeding and conceded the claim of the petitioners. The Assistant Consolidation Officer in purport exercise of his jurisdiction under Sec.10 (3) of the act recorded an order on compromise on 10-12-1979. 3. It may be stated that respondent no.7 herein is a purchaser of the same plot of la,nd from a grandson of a brother of Gajraj Singh. He is said to have purchased the plot of land in question on 6-8-1979. 4. The case of respondents 6 and 7 is that they had raised objections before the Assistant Consolidation Officer in the proceeding under Sec.10 (1) of the Act initiated by petitioners 1 to 3. Respondent No.6 is a co-sharer of Gajraj Singh from whom respondent No.7 had purchased the plot in question. Their case is that the Assistant Consolidation Officer ought not to have decided. the objection filed by petitioners 1 to 3 and the objection should have been referred to the Consolidation Officer under sub-section (5)of Sec.10 of the Act since no compromise was possible in view of respondents 6 and 7 herein objecting to the passing of an order on compromise. the objection filed by petitioners 1 to 3 and the objection should have been referred to the Consolidation Officer under sub-section (5)of Sec.10 of the Act since no compromise was possible in view of respondents 6 and 7 herein objecting to the passing of an order on compromise. In these circumstances, respondents 6 and 7 filed an application before the Consolidation Officer to modify the order of the Assistant Consolidation Officer dated 10-12-1979, but the same was rejected by the Consolidation Officer by his order (Annexure-2) dated 16-2-1981. Respondents 6 and 7 preferred an appeal which was disposed of by the deputy Director of Consolidation by order dated 17-6-1983 (Annexure-3) allowing the appeal. The petitioners thereafter preferred a revision which was disposed of by the Joint Director of consolidation by his order (Annexure-4) dated 15-3-1986 dismissing the revision. 5. The petitioners contend that the impugned orders passed by the deputy Director of Consolidation and the Joint Director of Consolidation (Annexures-3 and 4) are without jurisdiction. 6. Section 10 of the Act provides that any person may within 45 days of the date of publication of the Register under sub-section (1) filed before the assistant Consolidation Officer an objection in respect thereof, disputing the correctness of the entry in the records or in the statement of particulars. Subsection (3) confers on the Assistant consolidation Officer a limited jurisdiction to pass orders on the basis of compromise that may be arrived at between the parties before him in course of the enquiry made by him. Sub-section (4), however, provide that other matters which will include contested matters have to be referred to the Consolidation officer and the same has to be disposed of by the Consolidation Officer under sub-section (S ). Sub-section (6)provides that any person aggrieved by an order of the Assistant Consolidation officer or the Consolidation Officer under sub-sections (3), (4), or (S) may, within thirty days of such order, file an appeal before the Assistant Director of consolidation whose decision, except as otherwise provided by or under this act, shall be final. 7. It is, therefore, quite clear from the scheme of Sec.10 that the order passed by the Assistant Consolidation officer under sub-section (3) is appealable. Similarly, an order passed by the consolidation Officer is also appealable in view of the provision of sub-section (6) of Sec.10. 7. It is, therefore, quite clear from the scheme of Sec.10 that the order passed by the Assistant Consolidation officer under sub-section (3) is appealable. Similarly, an order passed by the consolidation Officer is also appealable in view of the provision of sub-section (6) of Sec.10. There is no jurisdiction conferred upon the Consolidation officer to set aside, modify or alter an order passed by the Assistant Consolidation Officer in purported exercise of his jurisdiction under sub-section (3)of Section lo. Any party aggrieved by an order passed by the Assistant Consolidation Officer under sub-section (3)must prefer an appeal under sub-section (6) of Sec.10 of the Act. 8. Respondents 6 and 7 could have, therefore, preferred an appeal against the order passed by the Assistant Consolidation Officer on 10-12-1979 (An-nexure-1 ). They, however, chose not to appeal against that order and initiated a fresh proceeding by filing an application before the Consolidation Officer praying that he might modify the order dated 10-12-1979 passed by the Assistant consolidation Officer. I fail to understand how such an application would be entertained by the Consolidation Officer because the Consolidation officer has not been constituted as the appellate, revisional or reviewing authority of the Assistant Consolidation officer. If the order of the Assistant consolidation Officer can be challenged on any ground whatsoever, an appeal should have been preferred under subsection (6) before the Assistant director of Consolidation. Rightly, therefore, the Consolidation Officer rejected the application filed before him on 16-2-1981 by his order (Annexure-2 ). 9. The appellate authority as well as the revisional authority have completely ignored the fact that respondents 6 and 7 had preferred no appeal against the order of the Assistant Consolidation officer (Annexure-1 ). They also failed to notice the fact that the application filed by respondents 6 and 7 before the consolidation Officer was not maintainable as the Consolidation Officer could not exercise the power of the appellate or reviewing authority against the order passed by the Assistant Consolidation Officer. Adverting to the merit of the case, the appellate and the revisional authority have allowed the claim of respondents 6 and 7. 10. Adverting to the merit of the case, the appellate and the revisional authority have allowed the claim of respondents 6 and 7. 10. In my view, the appellate order of the Deputy Director of Consolidation and the revisional order of the Joint director of Consolidation (Annexures 3 and 4, respectively) are without jurisdiction, inasmuch as the application filed by respondents 6 and 7 before the Consolidation Officer to modify the order of the Assistant Consolidation Officer dated 10-12-1979 was itself not maintainable, and rightly rejected by the consolidation Officer. It may be that the Assistant Consolidation Officer passed an order which was erroneous in law but if no appeal was preferred against that order, the order attained finality. Moreover, respondents 6 or 7 had not themselves filed any application under Sec.10 (1) of the Act. In these circumstances, Annexures 3 and 4 are quashed as being without jurisdiction and it is held that the application filed by respondents 6 and 7 before the consolidation Officer seeking modification of the order passed by the Assistant consolidation Officer was not maintainable as there is no provision for such an appeal or review. The only remedy for respondents 6 and 7 was to appeal against the order of the Assistant consolidation Officer under sub-section (6) of Sec.10 of the Act which they failed to do. This application is, accordingly, allowed. Application Allowed.