Judgment A. K. Ganguly, J. 1. This writ petition has been filed challenging the order dated 10-1-1986/28-1-1986 passed in Revision Case No.3253 of 1984 by the revisional authority. 2. The lands which are disputed in this case are situated in mauza nayagaon, Thana No. S31 Anchal and p. S. Desari, District Vaishali bearing c. S. Khata No.145 and CS. Khesara no.2347 and 2336 recorded in the cadestral Survey in the name of one jangi Singh. The said Jangi Singh was the Karta of Hindu undivided family consisting of his two brothers namely gohaur Singh and Anurag Singh. 3. The plots of land belonging to the share of Gohaur Singh were recorded in the name of Raj Kiran singh without any interference or objection in the Consolidation records from any corner. The dispute in question arises out of a land falling in the share of Jangi Singh who was allotted l/3rd share in his ancestral properties. It is stated by the petitioner that in the revisional survey operation, the lands in dispute were recorded in the names of the petitioners at the Khanapuri stage, against which respondent No.6 filed objection under Sec.103 of the bihar Tenancy Act which was decided in favour of the petitioners on 1-4-1963 in Objection Case No.100/62-63. The petitioner further asserts that against the said order no appeal or revision was preferred at any -time by the respondents. When the consolidation operation started in the area in question, the lands in dispute were recorded in the name of the petitioners, and register of land and statement of principle were published under Sec.10 (1) of the Consolidation Act. From 31st august, 1974 to 29th September, 1974, no objection was, however, filed by anybody against the entries made up to the year 1976. 4. It is the petitioners case that in 1977 for the first time, respondent No.6 filed objection. As the said objection was filed long after the expiry of period of limitation, the said objection case was rejected by respondent No.5 (the assistant Consolidation Officer, Desari, p. S. Desari, District Vaishali ) by the order dated 31st May, 1977. 5. It is not in dispute that against the said order no appeal was filed by respondent Nos.6 to 8. 5. It is not in dispute that against the said order no appeal was filed by respondent Nos.6 to 8. The relevant provision of Sec.10 (6) of the Act enables the aggrieved parties to file appeal against the order of the Assistant consolidation Officer, but the private respondents instead of doing so, they again filed another application before respondent No.4 in case No.2631 of 1977, which case was previously already disposed of on 31st May, 1977. The said petition which was filed before respondent No.4, was entertained by him and respondent No.4 (the Consolidation Officer) directed for making of consolidation entry of the disputed lands in favour of respondent nos.7 and 8, according to the alleged Kewala executed in their favour. This is the cruck of the case. The question is whether the Consolidation Officer, after disposal of the objection by the assistant Consolidation Officer under section 10 (3) of the Act by his order dated 31st May, 1977 can entertain further application in the said objection case and pass orders. 6. It is obvious from a reading of section 10 of the Act that the scheme of the Act is different. According to subsection (4) of Sec.10 of the Act, those cases which are not disposed of by the Assistant Consolidation Officer under sub-section (3) shall be forwarded by the said Assistant Consolidation Officer to the Consolidation Officer who shall dispose of the same in the manner prescribed in the statute, and if any person is aggrieved by the order either of the Assistant Consolidation Officer or of the Consolidation Officer which may be passed under sub-section (3), (4) or (5) of Sec.10 of the Act, the aggrieved party may within 30 days of such order, file an appeal before the Assistant Director of Consolidation. But in the instant case, after disposal of the objection by the order of the Assistant consolidation Officer, the Consolidation Officer acted as appellate authority and reviewed the order dated 31st May, 1977 passed by the Assistant consolidation Officer, this is not permissible under law. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn attention of this court to an unreported judgment delivered by the Hon ble Mr. Justice b. P. Singh in C. W. J. C. No.2431 of 1986 and another judgment delivered by the Hon ble Mr. Justice S. N. Jha, in C. W. J. C. No.5942 of 1985 on 13th January, 1997. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn attention of this court to an unreported judgment delivered by the Hon ble Mr. Justice b. P. Singh in C. W. J. C. No.2431 of 1986 and another judgment delivered by the Hon ble Mr. Justice S. N. Jha, in C. W. J. C. No.5942 of 1985 on 13th January, 1997. This Court has perused both these judgments and is of the view that in the judgment delivered by Hon ble Mr. Justice B. P. Singh in C. W. J. C. No.2431 of 1986, his Lordships has also taken a view that any person aggrieved by the order passed by the Assistant Consolidation Officer in sub-section (3) of section 10, must prefer an appeal under sub-section (6) of Sec.10 of the Act, and on that ground allowed the writ petition. This Court is in respectful agreement with the view taken by the learned Judge, and as such this Court is of the view that the order as contained in Annexure-2 which was passed by respondent No. , 4 is wholly illegal, and without jurisdiction. 8. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Private respondents submitted that against the said order which is at Annexure-2 the etitioners preferred an appeal and the said appeal was allowed on 15-1-1979. Against the said order of the appellate authority, respondent Nos.6 and 7 preferred revision. The revisional authority remanded the case back to the Deputy director of Consolidation, Vaishali to decide the matter afresh on merits after holding local inspection and thereafter on local inspection the matter was decided in favour of the petitioners. Against the said order of the appellate authority on remand, again revision was preferred by respondent No.6 and the said revisional authority ultimately decided the matter against the petitioners by the order which is at An-nexure-8. So it was submitted that the order at Annexure-2 was challenged before so many authorities by the petitioner. Therefore their objection to the said order on grounds of jurisdiction is of no avail. 9. Learned counsel for the private respondents further submitted that the ultimate judgment and order of the revisional authority is the order which has been passed on merits after considering the facts and circumstances of the case. Therefore, the so called objection of the petitioner about the lack of jurisdiction of respondent No.4 in passing the impugned order at An-nexure-2 no longer survives. Therefore, the so called objection of the petitioner about the lack of jurisdiction of respondent No.4 in passing the impugned order at An-nexure-2 no longer survives. 10. This Court is unable to appreciate the aforesaid contention of the private respondents. The statutory authority are created their powers are clearly confined with the four corners of the statutes and they cannot travel beyond the same. 11. In the instant case, exercise of jurisdiction by the Consolidation Officer (respondent No.4) is wholly without jurisdiction and in a manner which is contrary to the provisions of section 10 of the said Act, as pointed out above. All subsequent orders passed are vitiated by the same illegality. 12. In that view of the matter, this court quashes the impugned order at annexure-8 as also the order at An-nexure-2. This writ petition is thus allowed to the extent indicated above. There will be no order as to costs. Petition Allowed.