JUDGEMENT 1. Consolidation process was confirmed under Section 13(i) of the Bihar Consolidation of Holdings and Prevention of Fragmentation Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as the Act in favour of the petitioners. Petitioners got possession of the land prior to 21.7.1989. 2. On the general petition filed by some raiyats, the whole consolidation scheme of Mauza Bishunpura was cancelled by the Director, Consolidation and he ordered for starting the process from the stage of Section 7 of the Act in Revision Case No. 861/90 and physical survey was ordered to be done in respect of each and every plot of the Village in question. That order, passed in the aforesaid Revision Case, was challenged in CWJC No. 3177/90 and the Division Bench of this Court observed that the Chief Minister of the State has no power to interfere in the judicial functions and set aside the impugned order by the order dated 17.5.1990. 3. According to the petitioner, the Director, Consolidation passed an order on 5.8.1994 without complying the order dated 17.5.1990, passed in CWJC No. 3177/90, and he had cancelled the whole consolidation scheme and ordered for starting the process under Section 7 of the Act afresh. The aforesaid order dated 5.8.1994, passed by the Director, Consolidation was challenged in CWJC No. 8184/94. The aforesaid CWJC No. 8184/94, filed by the predecessor of the petitioners, was dismissed vide order dated 11.8.1997, against which an appeal was preferred by the petitioners, which was also dismissed. The Special Leave to Appeal was also filed against the order passed in the aforesaid appeal before the Supreme Court, which too was dismissed vide order dated 10.12.2001. 4. In any event, the order passed in CWJC No. 8184/94 confirmed the order of the Director, Consolidation. On the basis of the above order, it has become final to take steps for re-measuring the land of the village in question by re-starting the consolidation process afresh. 5. We are of the view that since writ petition for the same relief was dismissed and petitioners went on filing Letters Patent Appeal before the High Court and Special Leave to Appeal before the Supreme Court without any success, he cannot seek the same remedy and the measures taken in pursuance of the order of the revisional authority, which was confirmed by this Court, cannot be set aside. 6. 6. However, we make it clear that since the fresh consolidation proceedings are not finalized, till finalization of the above, status quo shall be maintained. 7. In the result, the present Letters Patent Appeal is dismissed with the above direction.