R.M.Prasad, J.

1. This writ application is directed against the order dated 25.11.1985 contained in Annexure-4 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Bihar. Headquarters at Patna purporting to be in exercise of the power under Sec. 35 of the Bihar Consolidation of Holdings and the Prevention of Fragmentation Act, 1956 (hereinafter preferred to as the Act) setting aside the order dated 13.8.1984 passed in Appeal No. 74/84-85 by the Dy. Director, Consolidation. Rohtas and confirming the order dated 3.3.1984 in case No. 38/83-84 passed by the Consolidation Officer Dehri purporting to be under Sec. 10-B of the Act, contained in Annexures 2 and 1, respectively.

2. In short, the relevant facts are that the petitioners and respondent Nos. 5 to 7 are descendants of their common ancestor Pratap Singh. The dispute is in respect of lands pertaining to revisional survey khata No. 209 and revisional survey plot Nos. 173 and 2010 comprising an area of 25 and 56 decimals, respectively, total being 0.81 acres in village Ghanai P.S. Dehri now Akorhi Gola P.S. 138 in the district of Rohtas. It is claimed that the land in dispute was jointly recorded in the names of the descendants of Pratap Singh including the petitioners and the aforementioned private respondents in the revisional survey khatian and in its remark column also joint possession was shown. Revisional survey plot No. 173 is a mango garden and is in joint possession of the parties and revisional survey plot No. 2010 is agriculture land, jointly cultivated by the parties. It is stated that revisional survey entry in the joint name of the parties was never challenged by the said respondents before the survey authorities either under Sec. 103-A, 106 or 109 of the Bihar Tenancy Act or in a competent Civil Court within three years from the date of final publication of the revisional survey entry.

3. In the supplementary affidavit, filed on behalf of the petitioners it is stated that the concerned village was notified under Sec. 3 of the Act vide S.C. No. 1076 dated 12.10.1972. The register of land prepared under Sub-sec. (2) of Sec. 9 and statement of principles prepared under Sec. 9 of the Act was published under Sec. 10 (1) on 12.10.1974 and the same remained published for thirty days, i.e. till 12.11.1974. Under Sec. 10 (2) of the Act the objections, if any, were to be filed within 45 days of the date of the publication of the registers under Sub-sec. (1) before the Asst. Consolidation Officer disputing the correctness and nature of entires in the records or in the statement of principles, i.e. by 26.11.1974, which was not done. However, in the year 1983 respondent Nos. 5 to 7 filed case No. 38/83-84 before the Consolidation Officer, Dehri, District Rohtas (respondent No. 4), purporting to be under Sec. 10-B of the Act praying therein 10 prepare Consolidation in their exclusive names.

4. The claim of the said respondents was that the lands in dispute along with other lands were auction sold in execution case No. 613/36 in satisfaction of the decree passed in Money suit No. 125/35 in favour of one Deo Mahto and after the death of Deo Mahto his son Bhola Mahto sold the said lands to private respondent Nos. 5 to 7 on 10.10.1955. As such, they prayed for recording of their exclusive names in the revisional survey khatian. The Consolidation Officer, Dehri (respondent No. 4) allowed their prayer vide order dated 3.3.1984 (Annexure 1), against which the petitioners filed appeal No. 74/84-85 before the Dy. Director, Consolidation, Rohtas (respondent No. 3) who, vide order dated 13.8.1984 (Annexure 2) set aside the order passed by respondent No. 4 and allowed the appeal and upheld the revisional survey entry. Respondent Nos. 5 to 7 filed revision case No. 3043/84 purporting to be under Sec. 35 of the Act before the Director, Consolidation against the aforesaid order of the appellate authority. During the pendency of the revision the Dy. Director of Consolidation, Headquarters