1. Heard Mr. Jitendra Prasad Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned J.C. to S.C. XI for the State.

2. The petitioners seek quashing the impugned order dated 26.10.200 passed by the Deputy Director, Consolidation (Headquarter), respondent no. 3, in Appeal Case No. 7/2001-02 while exercising the power under sec. 35 of the Bihar Consolidation of Holdings and Prevention of Fragmentation Act, 1956. By the said order, the Deputy Director directed to allot separate plots in favour of respondent nos. 5 to 8 after preparing maptKhatiyan.

3. Learned Counsel for the petitioners assails the said order on various points.

4. It is firstly submitted that the revisional power un|ter Sec.35 of the Act has been granted to the Director of Consolidation and the same could not have been exercised by the Deputy Director and for the said reason the impugned order is without jurisdiction and illegal. This proposition of law also finds support from the decision of this court in the case of RamotarYadav & Others vs. The State of Bihar & Ors. 2001(1), P.LJ.R. 266.

5. From consideration of sec. 35 of the Act it is evident that it has been provided therein that the Director of Conso