JUDGMENT B.N.Agrawal & Shiva Kirti Singh, JJ. 1. This application has been filed for quashing the order dated 14.7.1987 passed by Joint Director of Consolidation, Bihar, Patna (respondent no.2) contained in Annexure-4 whereby revision application was allowed and order passed by appellate authority was set aside and that passed by original authority was restored. 2. Short facts are that one Sidh Narain Rai filed an application before Consolidation Officer for grant of permission to sell certain land in favour of respondents 5 to 8. The Consolidation Officer by order dated 6.7.1979, contained in Annexure-2, allowed the said application and granted permission for sale. Against the said order, an appeal was preferred by respondent no.12 Prakash Rai before Deputy Director of Consolidation (respondent no.3) who allowed the same by order dated 9.8.1983, contained in Annexure-3 on grounds, inter alia, that no notice was served upon the appellants and the order passed by Consolidation Officer was set aside instead of remanding the matter to the Consolidation Officer. Thereafter, a revision was preferred before, the Director of Consolidation, Bihar, Patna, which has been decided by Joint Director (respondent no.2) by his order dated 14.7.1987 contained in Annexure-4. Hence, this writ application. 3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners in support of this application contended, inter alia, that revisional authority was not justified in disposing of the revision application on merit without passing any order upon the petition for condonation of delay, which was already on the record. 4. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondents 5 to 8, the fact that no order was passed upon the petition for condonation of delay has not been denied, though it has been admitted that the petition for condonation of delay was already on the record. Learned counsel had no option but to agree that revisional authority was not justified in disposing of the revision application on merit without passing any order upon the petition for condonation of delay. He, however, contended that the order passed by appellate authority is also fit to be quashed, as the order passed by Consolidation Officer has been set aside by appellate authority mainly on the ground that no notice was given to the appellants by Consolidation Officer before passing the order. He, however, contended that the order passed by appellate authority is also fit to be quashed, as the order passed by Consolidation Officer has been set aside by appellate authority mainly on the ground that no notice was given to the appellants by Consolidation Officer before passing the order. In our view, on this ground, after setting aside the order passed by original authority, the appellate authority ought to have remanded the matter to it for considering the petition for grant of permission on merit after giving an opportunity to all the parties. 5. In view of the aforesaid fact, we are of the view that in the ends of justice, all the three orders are fit to be set aside and the matter be remanded to the original court. Accordingly, the writ application is allowed, the orders contained in Annexures 2, 3, and 4 are hereby quashed and the matter is remanded to the concerned Consolidation Officer for disposal of the petition for grant of permission in accordance with law after giving an opportunity of hearing to all the parties. In the circumstances, we direct that parties shall bear their own costs.