Judgment Narayan Roy, J. 1. Heard leaned counsel for the petitioners and JC to SC IV. 2. This writ application is directed against the order as contained in annexure-3 dated 12.1.1987, whereby and whereunder the Respondent Authority in exercise of his power under section 35 of the Bihar Consolidation of Holdings and Prevention of Fragmentation Act, hereinafter to be referred to as the Act has set aside the orders passed by the Consolidation Officer and the appellate authority. 3. It appears that after entry being made in records about the claims of the petitioners and the private party the private respondent objected before the Consolidation Officer. The matter was heard and the Consolidation Officer rejected the claim of the private party. The matter went in appeal which was also dismissed and thereafter this revision was filed which was allowed and the orders passed by the Consolidation Officer and the appellate authority were set aside on the ground that no spot enquiry was held as required under sub-section 7 of Section 10 of the Act. 4. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that after due enquiry necessary entry was made by the Consolidation Officer as required under section 10 of the Act, and therefore, there was no further requirement to hold on the spot enquiry under sub-section 7 of Section 10 of the Act. Learned counsel further submitted that in case no enquiry was held then the revisional court could have remitted back the matter to the authorities but he set aside the orders and closed the claims of the parties. 5. In case the revisional court was satisfied that certain jurisdictional error were committed by the authorities under the Act, then it could have remitted back the matter for fresh consideration in accordance with law, but in no case it could have allowed the claims of the private respondent. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioners, however, is not in a position to demonstrate before this Court that the order impugned has been given effect to and by now the petitioners have been dispossessed and the private respondent has been put in possession. 7. It is also not the case of the petitioners that the consolidation proceeding is going on and there is likelihood of being given effect to the order impugned. 7. It is also not the case of the petitioners that the consolidation proceeding is going on and there is likelihood of being given effect to the order impugned. The parties appear to be co-sharers and there was previous partition amongst them by virtue of which they were put in separate possession and accordingly the Consolidation Officer directed for making necessary entry in records as required in law. The claims of the parties since merely remained on paper, it is not being given effect to. 8. In case there would be any grievance either to the petitioners or to the private respondent, they may go to the competent Civil Court where there claims would be adjudicated notwithstanding the orders passed by the authorities under the Act. 9. In my opinion, till now no prejudice has been caused to the petitioners nor it has affected their right, title and interest over the land in question. 9a. In this view of the matter, in my opinion, no interference is required and in case the matter goes to the competent Civil Court, necessary" adjudication shall be made without being prejudiced by the orders passed by the consolidation authorities. With this direction/observation, this writ application is disposed of.