JUDGEMENT 1. Heard Counsel for the petitioner and the Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent no. 5. 2. In the year 1980, three objections under Section 10(B) of the Consolidation Act were filed with a respect to the disputed lands which were Case Nos. 459, 465 & 463 of 1979-80. During the proceedings, the State of Bihar was noticed as the lands were recorded as ANABAD BIHAR SARKAR. It is not clear as to what the stand of State of Bihar was with respect to the lands in question. The petitioners 1 and 2 claim to be the purchasers from the settlees- of the lands. The cases were allowed in favour of Ram Bachchan Sah and it was ordered that consolidation chak should be opened in his name. One of the persons filed an appeal which was also dismissed vide order dated 31.1.1984. Respondent No. 5 filed Appeal No. 1 of 2005-06 under Section 10(B) of the Consolidation Act which was disposed of on 17.10.2006 rejecting his claim. The case, of respondent no. 5 is that his father had taken settlement of the lands from the ex-landlord. Against the order passed in appeal dated 17.10.2006, respondent no. 5 preferred revision application under Section 35 of the Consolidation Act which has been allowed in his favour on 4.5.2007. 3. The following facts emerged from the various orders of the Courts: (1) That the predecessors-in-interest of petitioners 1 and 2 also claim to be the settlees from the ex-landlord; (2) Respondent No. 5 at no time filed any objection with respect to the lands in question when the original cases were instituted; (3) After a gap of 21 years, respondent no. 5 filed an appeal without filing any application for condonation of delay in this case although it is claimed that he has given an explanation; (4) The petitioner no. 3 is the purchaser from the petitioners 1 and 2; (5) That petitioner no. 3 had filed an application to get the lands in question settled in her favour which was described as ANABAD BIHAR SARKAR; (6) The appeal has been wrongly filed by the respondent no. 5, at the most, he would have filed an application under Section 35 of the Consolidation Act. 4. All these aspects ought to be considered afresh before any order is passed. 5, at the most, he would have filed an application under Section 35 of the Consolidation Act. 4. All these aspects ought to be considered afresh before any order is passed. The parties will need to place their claims and their documents and also explain as to how the lands came to be recorded as ANABAD BIHAR SARKAR. It may be proper to mention here that it appears that Abha Devi has been shown to be in possession over the lands in question and Lagan receipts have also been issued in her favour. 5. In any event, this Court cannot sustain the orders passed by the Joint Director, Consolidation dated 4.5.2007 in view of the facts pointed above. 6. I, accordingly, quash the order dated 4.5.2007 and remit the matter back to the Director, Consolidation, Patna to consider all these facts afresh and pass an appropriate orders within a period of one year on appearance of the parties. 7. This application is allowed in the terms aforesaid.