Judgment B. P. Singh, J. 1. Heard Counsel for the parties. The petitioners herein have impugned the appellate and revisional orders (Annexures 2 and 3) passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation and Joint Director of Consolidation respectively holding that the petitioners and the private respondents have equal share in Revisional Khata No.187, which corresponds to Cadestral Survey khata No.138 in respect of the plot measuring 8.13 acres. The case of the petitioners is that one Gogal Singh had four sons, namely, Kunjbihari Singh, brijbihari Singh, Khobhari Singh and -Dewal Singh. Dewal Singh separated long ago and sold his l/3rd share to bramhdeo Singh, son of Kunjbihari singh. The petitioners belong to the branch of Kunjbihari Singh. The private respondents belong to the second branch of Brijbihari Singh. The petitioners contend that after Dewal singh separated with his l/3rd interest in the joint family, the branches of kunjbihari Singh and Brijbihari Singh were entitled to l/3rd share each, and the petitioners inherited l/3rd share which devolved upon them through kunjbihari Singh. Apart from l/3rd share to which they had succeeded in normal course, they also claimed l/3rd share of Dewal Singh, which they had purchased under two sale deeds dated 19-12-1919 and 25-7-1924. It is contended that in the revisional survey record of rights prepared in the year 1960,2/3rd share was shown in favour of the petitioners and only l/3rd share was recorded in favour of the private respondents. The notification under the consolidation Act was published in 1973-74, whereafter necessary steps were taken under Sections 8,9 and 10 obrq the Act, regarding publication of recontrol of rights, register of lands, etc. the private respondents challenged the right of the petitioners to 2/3rd share in the aforesaid Khata claiming equal share. The Consolidation Officer rejected the claim of private respondents, but the appellate authority and the revisional authority have concurrently upheld the claim of the private respondents. 2. It cannot be disputed that the petitioners as well as the private respondents were entitled to one-third share each which devolved upon them. The dispute is as to whether the share of third branch was purchased by brahmdeo Singh. 2. It cannot be disputed that the petitioners as well as the private respondents were entitled to one-third share each which devolved upon them. The dispute is as to whether the share of third branch was purchased by brahmdeo Singh. The appellate authority as well as the revisional authority have considered the evidence on record, and after an exhaustive discussion of the same it has been held by them concurrently that the two sale deeds executed by Dewal Singh were not in respect of his l/3rd interest in the joint family property but only proved sale of 21 kathas of land in favour of the brahmdeo Singh. The appellate authority has also held, and which has not been set aside by the revisional authority, that the purchase by brahmdeo Singh was on behalf of the joint family since he was then, the Karta of the joint family. The appellate as well as revisional authorities have held that the sale deeds executed by Dewal Singh did not relate to his 1/3 share which he had received while separating from the family, since the purchase was made on behalf of the joint family, both the branches are entitled to 1/2 share each. 3. Having regard to the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the appellate authority and the revisional authority, I have no good reason to interfere with the findings of fact. 4. Counsel for the petitioners then submitted that in view of the provision of Sec.8 (2) of the Bihar Consolidation of Holdings and Prevention of fragmentation Act, the authorities could not have interfered with the revisional survey record of rights repared in the year 1960, because the re said section does not permit any reference with the said record of rights. The argument is misconceived. Sec.8 provides that soon after the publication of a notification under Sec.3, an up-to-date record of rights in respect of all lands comprised in the notified area, together with map shall be prepared. Sub-section (2) of Sec.8 provides that where in respect of lands which comprised in the notified area, map and record of rights had been prepared and. preliminarily or finally published under the provisions of Chapter X of the Bihar Tenancy Act, 1885, or as the case may be, Chapter XII of the chotanagpur Tenancy Act, etc. Sub-section (2) of Sec.8 provides that where in respect of lands which comprised in the notified area, map and record of rights had been prepared and. preliminarily or finally published under the provisions of Chapter X of the Bihar Tenancy Act, 1885, or as the case may be, Chapter XII of the chotanagpur Tenancy Act, etc. within twenty years preceding the date of publication of the notification under Sec.3, such map and record of rights shall be deemed to be up-to-date map and record of rights prepared under sub-section (1 ). Sec.9 provides that when the record of rights and map have been or are deemed to have been brought up-to-date there shall be determined, the valuation of each plot in the manner prescribed. Sub-section (2)provides for the preparation in the prescribed form. A register of lands belonging to raiyats has to be prepared containing the particulars specified including the name of the raiyat, the areas and serial numbers of the plots etc. Under Sec.9-A a provision has been made for preparation of statement of principles. 5. Under Sec.10 the registers prepared under sub-section (2) of Sec.9 and the statement of principles prepared under Sec.9-A have to be published. Sub-section (2) provides that any person may within 45 days of th date of the publication of the register under sub-section (1) file before the Assistant Consolidation Officer objection in respect thereof, disputing the correctness and nature of entries in the records or in the statement of principles. 6. It would thus appear that in the matter of preparation of an up-to-date record of rights, the record of rights prepared within twenty years preceding the date of publication has to be deemed to be the up-to-date record of rights. That does not mean that after publication of the register of lands under Sec.9 and the statement of principles under Sec.9-A as also their publication under Sec.10, the same cannot be challenged by any person aggrieved under sub-section (2) of section 10. It is now well-settled that in respect of such matters the jurisdiction of civil courts is barred till the consolidation proceedings are in progress. All objections, therefore, have to be raised before the concerned authority under the Act. It is, therefore, not correct to submit that in view of sub-section (2) of Sec.8 the up-to-date record of rights becomes final which cannot be touched in any proceeding. All objections, therefore, have to be raised before the concerned authority under the Act. It is, therefore, not correct to submit that in view of sub-section (2) of Sec.8 the up-to-date record of rights becomes final which cannot be touched in any proceeding. If the record of rights is challenged, the same can be looked into by the competent authority under Sec.10 (2) of the Act, if an objection is filed before the prescribed authority. I, therefore, find no merit in the second submission as well. In the result, this writ petition is dismissed. Petition Dismissed.