Judgment This writ petition is directed against the order dated 21.5.84 of the respondent no. 2, the Director of Consolidation, Bihar of Holdings and Prevention of Fragmentation Act, 1956 (for short ‘the Act’) 2. It appears that the respondents no. 5 Ram Jivan Sah, filed an objection under section 12(2) of the Act before the Consolidation Officer, Nariganj claiming that he has sold the land in dispute respondent nos. 10 and 11, Bashistha Narain Pandey and Ramdeo Pandey and as such their names may be mutated in the revenue records which was allowed on 27.1.76. The petitioners filed revision which was allowed by the respondent no. 2 on 11.5.79 and the case was remanded consolidation Officer deciding it afresh on merit. The Consolidation Officer, who heard the objection in pursuance of order of remand, dismissed it on 27.10.80. The respondent no.3 the Deputy Director of Consolidation Rohtas. Petitioner filed revision, which was dismissed by the respondent no. 2 on 21.5.84. Feeling aggrieved, they have filed this writ petition. 3. Heard the learned council for the parties and perused the record. 4. Learned Council for the petitioners contended that the land in dispute was recorded in the names of the petitioners with the consent and collaboration of the respondents nos. 5 to 11 and finding to the contrary of the respondents nos.2 and 3 is wholly erroneous. On the other hand, learned council for the respondents nos. 5, 10 and 11 contended that the writ petitioner is concluded by finding of fact and is liable to be dismissed. 5. It appears that C.S. plot no. 24, 30 and 32 measuring 1.10 acres on the spot 1.08 acres originally belonged Duki Das Sah. On the death of Duki Das Sah, his share devolved on his son Ram Jivan Sah (respondent no. 5). Rewati Kant Sah (father of the respondent nos. 6 and 7) and Sanjivan Sah (father of respondent no. 8). Similarly, on the death of Sheo Chandra Sah his Share devolved on his son Girija Kant Sah (respondent no. 9) Rewati Kant Sah mortgaged the entire 54 decimals land to Ram Gati Mahto on 9.6.52. Subsequently respondent no. 9, Girija Kant Sah, sold his 54 decimals land to the petitioner in 1965, since petitioner no. 3, Prano Devi, daughter of Ram Gati Mahto, was married to Jamuna Singh, brother of petitioner nos.1, 2, 4 and 5 and son of respondent no. Subsequently respondent no. 9, Girija Kant Sah, sold his 54 decimals land to the petitioner in 1965, since petitioner no. 3, Prano Devi, daughter of Ram Gati Mahto, was married to Jamuna Singh, brother of petitioner nos.1, 2, 4 and 5 and son of respondent no. 6, it appears that they also stated cultivating the land in dispute along with the land purchased by them from respondent no. 9. In the revisional survey apart from 54 decimals land purchased by them from respondent no. 9, 39 decimal land out of 54 decimal land mortgaged by Rewati Kant Sah in favour of Ram Gati Mahto, was also recorded in the name of respondent no. 5, Ram Jivan Sah. The mistake was repeated in the records prepared under section 9 and 9A of the Act as the same were prepared on the basis of entries of revisional survey. 6. The petitioners were recorded in the register of land published under section 10 (1) but the respondent nos. 5 to 11 did not file any objection under section 10 (2) of the Act. However, later on, they filed an objection under section 12(2) of the Act, which was dismissed by the Consolidation Officer with the observation that from the inhabitants of the locality it transpired that they gave this land to the petitioners after obtaining money from them and that the petitioner also perfect right in the land by adverse possession. The respondent nos. 5, 10 and 11 filed appeal to the Deputy Director of Consolidation which was allowed and the order of the Consolidation Officer was set aside. The petitioners filed revision which was dismissed by respondent no. 2 with the result the objection of the respondent nos. 5, 10 and 11 under section 12 (2) of the Act stands allowed. 7. The respondent no. 2 after considering the entire material on record come to the conclusion that the petitioners were in possession of the land in dispute on belief of Ram Gati Mahto to whom it was mortgaged by Rwati Kant Sah on 9.6.52 and as such the question of their acquiring any right in it by adverse possession did not arise. According to him, Ram Gati Mahto was trustee of the land and therefore merely because he allowed the petitioner to cultivate it on his behalf could not confer any right on them. According to him, Ram Gati Mahto was trustee of the land and therefore merely because he allowed the petitioner to cultivate it on his behalf could not confer any right on them. He further held the entries is favour of the petitioners in the revisional survey and the consolidation records were patently erroneous and there was absolutely no material on record to prove the right of the petitioners in the land in dispute. He further held that the period of resumption of mortgage under the Indian Limitation Act, 1963 was 30 years and therefore the respondent nos. 5 to 11 were entitled to redeem the mortgaged dated 9.6.52 upto 8.6.82 Moreover, the petitioners were entitled to regain possession of the land in dispute under section 12 of the Bihar Money Landers Act, 1974 after expiry of 7 years. 8. I have considered the entire material on record carefully and I find no error in the aforesaid finding of the respondent no 2. The learned counsel for the petitioners has failed to point out any basis for the entries in favour of the petitioners in the revisional survey and the consolidation records. Since the land in dispute was mortgaged by Rewati Kant Sah in favour of Ram Gati Mahto, respondent nos. 5 to 11 ought to have been recorded as land holders in the revisional survey mentioning the name of Ram Gati Mahto in the remarks colum but the petitioners were wrongly recorded as land holders in the revisional survey either through inadvertence or at the instance of the petitioners. The fact remains that they had no right in the land in dispute and the entry in their favour in revisional survey was patently erroneous. The mistake was repeated in the consolidation records as the same were prepared on the basis of the entries in the revisional survey. 9. As stated above, the petitioners were recorded in the register of records published under section 10 (1) of the Act and, as such, it was incumbent on the respondent nos. 5, 10 and 11 to file objection under section 10 (2) of the Act which was admittedly not done and, as such, their claim was barred by section 10A of the Act. Since the claim of the respondent pos. 5, 10 and 11 is barred by section 10A of the Act, the respondent nos. 5, 10 and 11 to file objection under section 10 (2) of the Act which was admittedly not done and, as such, their claim was barred by section 10A of the Act. Since the claim of the respondent pos. 5, 10 and 11 is barred by section 10A of the Act, the respondent nos. 2 and 3 erred in allowing their objections under section 12 (2) of the Act. However, considering the fact that the petitioners have absolutely no right or interest in the land in dispute and the entries in their favour in the revisional survey and the consolidation records were without any basis it is not a fit case for interference under Article 226 of the Constitution. It is now well settled that even if an order is wholly illegal or without jurisdiction, if substantial justice has been done between the parties it cannot be interfered with in the writ Jurisdiction. In this view of the matter, I am not inclined to interfere under Article 226 of the Constitution. 10. In the result the writ petition fails and is, accordingly, dismissed. No order as to costs. Petition dismissed.