J.N.Bhatt, J.

1. In this writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the challenge is against the order of the revisions! authority, dated 20.9.1988, recorded by the Deputy Director, Consolidation (Hqrs.), Patna, who is respondent no. 3, in Consolidation Revision No. 2187 of 1985, a copy, whereof, is placed as Annexure 4.

2. Learned counsel for the parties are heard. Entire record is examined. The relevant provisions of the Bihar Consolidation of Holdings & Prevention of Fragmentation Act, 1956 ("Act of 1956") have been considered and examined for the purpose of appreciating the submissions raised in this writ application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

3. The respondent no. 6 is the original applicant, who preferred an application under Sec. 10-B of the Act of 1956 for consolidation and mutation of his name in respect of the land bearing no. C.S. Khata No. 90 of C.S.PIot No. 563 R.S. Khata No. 41 and R.S.PIot No. 1245, measuring about 0.11 acres of land situated in village Kharigawan, Thana no. 177, Chainpur Anchal of Rohtas district, which is hereinafter referred to as the disputed land.

4. Upon consideration of the facts and circumstances, the first revenue authority held in favour of respondent no. 6 and allowed the application.

5. Sec. 10 of the Act of 1956 empowers the aggrieved party to move for mutation and consolidation against the publication of registers of lands and statement of principles and objections thereon. The respondent no. 6 had raised objection against the entry in survey register before the Consolidation Officer who allowed it, against which the present petitioner filed an appeal under Sec. 10(6) of the Act of 1956. The appeal was allowed quashing the order of the Consolidation Officer against which there was revision under Section 35 of the Act of 1956, which was decided by the Deputy Director, Consolidation (Hqs), Patna, (respondent no. 3), in Revision No. 2187 of 1985, whereby and whereunder, he restored the order of the Consolidation Officer.

6. The main contention which has been advanced is referable to the point of law. In that it has been contended on behalf of the petitioner that the order in appeal, which came.to bo hoard by the Deputy Director, Consolidation, Rohtas (respondent no. 4), in Appeal No. 190 of 1985 in favour of the petitioner, is reversed by the concurrent and similar authority, namely, Deputy Director, Consolidation (Hqrs) (respondent no. 3), in Consolidation Revision No. 2187 of 1985 on 20.9.1988 and, therefore, it is illegal. This submission appears to be quite weighty and full of substance while examined in the light of the facts of the case and in the backdrop of the legal provision.

7. The provision of revision and reference has been made in Sec. 35 of the Act of 1956. It reads here as under:

"35. Revision and reference.The Director of Consolidation may on his own motion or on the application of any party or on reference being made by any subordinate authority, call for and examine the record of any case decided or proceedings taken by such authority for the purpose of satisfying himself as to the regularity of the proceeding; or as to the correctness, legality or propriety of any order passed by such authority in the case or proceedings, and may after allowing the parties concerned an opportunity of being heard, make such order in the case or proceedings as he thinks fit."

8. The very design and desideratum of the aforesaid provision would go to show that it empowers the Director of Consolidation to see that the statutory functionary, subordinate revenue courts, are not acting arbitrarily and illegally in exercise of the jurisdiction under the Act of 1956. Once it is, successfully, shown that there is illegal exercise of jurisdiction or impugned decision has resulted in the manifested perversity or illegality, it has to be put in appropriate legal shape.

9. Sec. 10 of the Act of 1956, as noticed above, provides for publicati