J.N.BHATT, J.

1. In this Writ Petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the challenge is against the Orders of the revisional Authority, dated, 10th June, 1988, and 16th September, 1988 recorded by the Deputy Director, Consolidation (Hqrs.), Patna, who is Respondent No. 3, in Consolidation Revision No. 2765 of 1985, a copy whereof is placed as Annexures 7 and 10, respectively.

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

3. The Respondent No. 4 is the original Applicant, who preferred an application under Sec. 10B of the Act of 1956 giving rise to Case No. 14 of 1981 -82, for consolidation and mutation of his name in respect of the land Bearing No. Khata No. 13, Kharari Thana No. 222 having an area of 18.10 acres in P.S. Karahgar, District Rohtas, which is hereinafter referred to as the disputed land.The Petitioner appeared in the said case and filed a written statement raising various pleas including the plea of maintainability of the case.

4. Upon consideration of the facts and circumstances, the first revenue Authority dismissed the case by Order dated, 12th July, 1984 and rejected the claim of Respondent No. 4.

5. Against the Order of the Consolidation Officer Respondent No. 4 filed an appeal under Sec. 10(6) of the Act of 1956 being Appeal No. 618 of 1984-85, which was dismissed by Order dated, 5th November, 1985 affirming the Order of the Consolidation Officer against which there was revision under Sec. 35 of the Act of 1956, which was decided by the Deputy Director, Consolidation (Hqs), Patna, (Respondent No. 3), in Revision No. 2765 of 1985, whereby and whereunder, he allowed the revision, as noticed above, giving rise to this application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by the Petitioner.

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 be heard by the Deputy Director, Consolidation, Rohtas in Appeal No. 618 of 1984-85 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. 2765 of 1985 on 16th September, 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,