J.N. DUBEY, J.

This writ petition is directed against the order dated 28.8.1985 of the Joint Director of Consolidation Bihar.

2. It appears that the land in dispute was recorded in the names of the respondent nos. 4 to 16 in the statement of principles prepared under section 9A of the Bihar consolidation of Holdings & Prevention of Fragmentation Act, 1956 (for short ‘the Act’). The petitioners filed objection under section 10(2) of the Act claiming that they were landholders in possession of the land in dispute but heir names were wrongly omitted from the revenue records. Respondents nos. 4 to 16 contested the objection on the ground that they were land-holders in possession of the in dispute and were rightly recorded as such in the revenue records. The Assistant the objection, allowed it on 11.11.1977. The respondent nos. 4 to 16 filed appeal to the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Muzaffarpur which was dismissed on 26.12.1979. Thereafter they filed revision which was allowed by the Joint Director, the petitioner have filed this writ petition.

3. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners contented that the Joint Director of Consolidation was not legally justified in setting aside the findings of fact recorded by the two courts below in their favour in its revisional power under section 35 of the Act.

5. I find substance in the argument of the learned counsel. The Assistant Consolidation Officer and the Deputy Director of consolidation, after considering the entire material on record, had recorded the finds of fact in favour of the petitioners and the same could not be legally set aside by the Joint Director of Consolidation in its revisional power. It is now well settled that the revisional court cannot give a finding by appreciating the facts de novo. My this view finds support from a decision of the Supreme Court in Ram Dular-versus-Deputy Director of Consolidation, Joanpur and others (1994 Supp. (2) Supreme Court Cases, 198 in which the Supreme Court while interpreting a similar provision of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, has held as under :

“It is clear that the Director had power to satisfy himself as to the legality of the proceedings or as to the correctness of the proceedings or correctness, legality or propriety of any order than interlocutory order passed by the authorities under the Act. But in considering the correctness, legality or propriety of the order or correctness of the proceedings or regularity thereof it cannot assume to itself the jurisdiction of the original authority as a fact finding authority by appreciating for itself of those facts de novo. It has to consider whether the legally admissible evidence had not been considered by the authorities in recording a finding of fact or law or the conclusion reached by it is based on evidence, by patent illegality or impropriety had been committed or there was any procedural-irregularity, which goes to the rest (sio root) of the matter, had been committed in recording the order or finding.”

6. The Joint Director of Consolidation has committed an error apparent on the fact of the record in setting side the findings of fact recorded by the two subordinate courts in favour of the petitioners and as such, his order is liable to be quashed.

7. Learned counsel for the respondents nos. 4 to 16 contended that even assuming that the order of the Joint Director of Consolidation is without jurisdiction, it is not a fit case for interference under Article 226 of the Constitution as substantial justice has been done between the parties. According to him, the objection filed by the petitioner under section 10 (2) of the Act was contested by the respondents and therefore, the same could not be legally decided by the Assistant Consolidation Officer. Under section 10 (3) of the Act, the Assistant Consolidation officer is competent only to decide the objection on the basis of compromise. Since in this c