JUDGEMENT 1. The petitioner has challenged the order dated 11.12.1992 passed by the Joint Director, Consolidation, Gaya in Revision Case No. 1455 of 1990-91 by which there was a direction to enter the name of the private respondents in the revenue records and grant them rent receipts. 2. The petitioner has filed this writ application as Secretary to the Joundhi Qabristan and also in his individual capacity. The case of the petitioner is that the land in question was Gair Mazarua Aam land, used as Qabristan. The case of the petitioner is that at the time of consolidation proceeding, the rent register was prepared showing Khata No. 278, Plot No. 97, measuring 0.38 decimals and lands appertaining to Khata No. 11, Plot No. 100, measuring 0.77 decimals as Qabristan. The aforesaid lands correspond to Chak Plot Nos. 152 and 156, appertaining to Chak Plot No. 486. In the remarks column of the said rent register, AWAIDH (3t^j) possession of Dhanuk Pasi and Cheddi Pasi was found to be recorded. 3. The petitioner filed an application before the Director, Consolidation for correction of the rent register. The matter was remanded to the Consolidation Officer. On remand, the Consolidation Officer rejected the application of the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner could not produce any document to show that the lands had been settled as Qabristan by the State of Bihar. Being aggrieved with the findings of the Consolidation Officer, the petitioner filed an appeal. The appellate authority vide Annexure-6, dated 6.11.1998 after hearing the State Counsel and the ancestors of the present petitioner, recorded that the land in question is a Qabristan and it was also noticed by the appellate authority that there was no material to show that the land adjacent to the Qabristan, also belongs to the State of Bihar, were part and parcel of the Qabristan. This finding remained unchallenged by the private respondents or the State of Bihar. Thereafter, the respondents moved before the Joint Director, Consolidation by filing an application under Section 35 of the Consolidation Act. The claim of the respondents is that they have been settled the lands described in the order sheet by the State authorities and also produced the copy of the parwana issued to them alongwith the rent receipts. The Director, Consolidation allowed the application of the respondents. The claim of the respondents is that they have been settled the lands described in the order sheet by the State authorities and also produced the copy of the parwana issued to them alongwith the rent receipts. The Director, Consolidation allowed the application of the respondents. The petitioner is aggrieved by the impugned order dated 11.12.1992 and has, therefore, moved before this Court. 4. The case of the respondents, on the other hand, is that the petitioner does not have locus to file this writ application as he has not brought on record any document to show that he is the Secretary of the Qabristan in question. It is further submitted that the lands have been wrongly recorded as Gairmazarua Aam land and when the respondents got knowledge of this fact, they filed an application before the Consolidation Officer. 5. In the aforesaid circumstances, the facts that emerge in this case are firstly that the ancestors of the respondents and the petitioner had earlier moved before the consolidation authorities and after hearing both the parties, the appellate authority had held that the lands in question was a Qabristan and accordingly allowed it to be recorded in the rent register. The ancestors of the respondent, at that stage, had tried to show that they had title and possession over the said lands. 6. The order of the Consolidation Authorities in 1988 indicates that the petitioner was pursuing the matter from the very beginning. Lands belonging to the Qabristan, unless specifically indicate, are for the use of the entire community and not the personal property of any one person. 7. The case of the respondents, as would appear from Annexure-7 (memo of the revision application filed before the Consolidation Officer) under Section 35 of the Consolidation Act is that, the land in question belongs to the ex-landlord and the ex-landlord by issuing the SADA HUKUMNAMA settled the lands in favour of the respondents ancestors. It is said on behalf of the respondents that they are in peaceful possession over the lands in question. It is also the case of the respondents that the said lands have been settled by the State of Bihar in their favour and they had been paying rent to the State of Bihar after the settlement from 1985 onwards. 8. It is said on behalf of the respondents that they are in peaceful possession over the lands in question. It is also the case of the respondents that the said lands have been settled by the State of Bihar in their favour and they had been paying rent to the State of Bihar after the settlement from 1985 onwards. 8. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the stand of the respondents as far as it concerns their title and possession over the lands in question is in conflict with each other, as the respondents cannot in the same breath claim title through settlement by the ex-landlord and also by the State of Bihar. Parties cannot be allowed to approbate and reprobate at the same time. 9. This case is a fine example of the manner in which the Government Officials perform their duties. The Consolidation Authorities after confirming chak, reversed the order on the basis of a parwana allegedly issued by the Settlement Officer/the Circle Officer. The Settlement Officer/the Circle Officer without making enquiry of looking into the documents of the case or even conducting the spot enquiry to confirm the nature of the land in question, passed an order of settlement. It is also obvious that no settlement can be made regarding a piece of land which is used as Qabristan. 10. In my view, the order of the Settlement Officer has been passed on either deliberate suppression or lack of knowledge of the facts surrounding the " ".jal physical features with respect to the land in question. The order of the Consolidation Officer can hardly be condoned in view of the fact that while he was making the correction in the earlier rent register, it was incumbent upon him to call for the records of the case, examine them, notice the parties, specially the State authorities in a case of this nature before passing any final order. If the Joint Director had examined the records, he would have realized that the matter had earlier been thrashed out between the parties, and perhaps he would have issued notice and thereafter passed an appropriate order. 11. In the result, the order dated 11.12.1992 passed by the Joint Director, Consolidation in Revision Case No. 1455 of 1990-91 is hereby quashed. The parties will be at liberty to take whatever legal remedies available to them. 12. 11. In the result, the order dated 11.12.1992 passed by the Joint Director, Consolidation in Revision Case No. 1455 of 1990-91 is hereby quashed. The parties will be at liberty to take whatever legal remedies available to them. 12. This writ application is allowed to the extent aforesaid.