Judgment Radha Mohan Prasad, J. 1. This writ petition is directed against the order dated 3-1-97, contained in Annexure-3, passed by the Joint Director, consolidation, Bihar, Patna (respondent No.1) purporting to be in exercise of the power under Sec.35 of the bihar Consolidation of Holdings and prevention of Fragmentation Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as the Act ). 2. It is submitted by learned Counsel for the petitioners that a revision application was filed by the respondents concerned directly under Sec.35 of the Act without availing the remedy by way of appeal. However, even the said revision was filed after the village was confirmed in terms of the provisions -contained in Sec.13 of the Act and delivery of possession was also effected in terms of Sec.15 of the Act. Thus, according to him, the Joint Director, consolidation (respondent No.1) was not justified in exercising the power under Sec.35 of the Act, inasmuch as the effect of the order passed by him will lead to disturbing the entire Chaks determined by the Consolidation authorities. 3. None has appeared on behalf of the respondents concerned to oppose this writ petition. 4. While admitting the writ petition on 23-4-87 a Division Bench of this court stayed the operation of impugned order pending final disposal of the same. 5. I find it difficult to accept the submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioners that after the confirmation of the village and effecting delivery of possession in terms of Sec.13 and 15 of the Act respectively, the Joint director of Consolidation cannot exercise the power under Sec.35 of the act. It may be true that by the exercise of the said powers some chaks may be disturbed, but that cannot be a ground to refuse the relief to a person if entitled for it. 6. However, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, I do not find it expedient to allow the impugned order to operate, as the operation of the same was stayed ten years back and today, none has appeared on behalf of the respondents to oppose the writ petition. 6. However, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, I do not find it expedient to allow the impugned order to operate, as the operation of the same was stayed ten years back and today, none has appeared on behalf of the respondents to oppose the writ petition. Now, in view of the Division Bench decision of this Court in the case of hari Narayan Singh and others V/s. The stale of Bihar and others, reported in 1997 (1) BLJ 921 the aggrieved parties cannot move the Civil Court of competent jurisdiction in order to get their right, title and interest over such disputed land decided. The impugned order is thus, quashed with the liberty to the concerned respondents to get their claim settled in the Civil Court of competent jurisdiction in the light of the aforementioned Division Bench Judgment. Order Quashed.