Barin Ghosh and Ajay Kumar Tripathi JJ.

1. In the year 1916 the then proprietor of the land in question executed a Khewat and thereby declared that three persons named in the Khewat are the raivats/tenure holders of the land in Question. Revenue records were thereupon prepared and in those the name of the first person was shown with suffix "others". The proprietor who executed the Khewat acquired the title of the land in question by reason of a family partition effected prior to the date of execution of the Khewat.

2. Subsequently when register of land was prepared under the Bihar Consolidation of Holdings and Prevention of Fragmentation Act, it was shown therein that the son of the proprietor of the land is the raiyate of the land in question, i.e. acquired right to hold the same.

3. The writ petitioners, being the heirs of the person first named in the Khewat, then filed an objection u/s. 10 of the Act and having lost before the Consolidation Officer preferred an appeal and again lost. At this stage the heirs of the other two persons named in the Khewat, being the appellants before us, did not approach the Consolidation Officer. The writ petitioners having lost before the Assistant Director of Consolidation in the appeal preferred by them, filed a revision application.

4. In the revision application the respondent No. 16 in the writ petition and the appellant No. 2 in this appeal, being the heir of one of those two persons named in the Khewat, made an application for being added as a party to the said revision application. That application was rejected with the observation that it shall be open to the said appellant to approach the revisonal authority, if and when occasion therefor will arise.

5. Prior thereto both the appellants, being respondent Nos. 16 and 17 in the writ petition and the heirs of those two named in the Khewat, individually preferred revision applications before the Director of Consolidation. These three revision applications, one filed by the writ petitioners and other two by the appellants before us were heard and decided by one order, when it was held that it is not the son of the original proprietor but the writ petitioners as well as the appellants before us are entitled to the land in Question to be recorded in their names as raiyats.

6. Against this order the writ petitioners preferred the writ petition and principally contended that since no objection was filed by the appellants under Sec. 10 of the said Act, they were not entitled to prefer revision application straightway before the Director of Consolidation, which contention was upheld by the learned Single Judge in the order impugned before us. In addition to that it was contended that in as much as the revisional authority has already decided that the appellant No. 2 does not have titled to the land in Question, while rejecting his application for being impleaded as a party to the revision application filed by the writ petitioners, the said finding operates as res judicata and accordingly nothing contrary to such finding could be agitated at a subsequent stage. This contention too had been accepted by the learned Single Judge in the order Impugned before us.

7. Inasmuch as a Division Bench in the case of Shyam Bihari Upadhyay V/s. The State of Bihar and Ors. reported 1985 BBCJ 176, followed by a Full Bench in the case of Seikh Haldar Zan V/s. Md. Yusuf Ansari and Anr. reported 2000 (2) PLJR 338 have declared that sec. 10A of the Act does not preclude a person, who had not taken recourse to sec. 10 of the Act, to approach the revisional authority with an application seeking revision of the decisions of the authorities below, the learned Counsel appearing for respondent writ petitioners fairly concedes that the learned Single Judge on that score committed an error. Learned Counsel for the writ petitioners however, drew our attention to the Judgment of the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Ram Dular V/s. Deputy Director of Consolidatio