1. Radha Mohan Prasad, J.As in both these writ petitions, the question involved is common, they have been heard and are being finally disposed of together after due service of notice to the Respondents.

2. In short, the relevant facts are that in both the writ petitions petitioners are aggrieved by the order passed by the Deputy Director, Consolidation, Purnea and Deputy Director, Consolidation (Headquarters), Bihar, Patna in Revision Case No. 31/98 and 332/96 prospectively in purported exercise of the power under Section 35 of the Bihar Consolidation of Holdings and Prevention of Fragmentation Act, 1956, hereinafter referred to as the Act. In both the writ petitions respective revisions were filed against the order of the Deputy Director, Consolidation, Saharsa and Vaishali passed in the respective appeals. First one preferred by the concerned Respondents and the second one preferred by the petitioner, which were finally heard and disposed of by the Deputy Director, Consolidation as already mentioned above.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners, inter alia, contended that the order impugned in the respective petitions passed by the Deputy Director are wholly without juris