DR. RAVI RANJAN, J.:–Heard parties.

2. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 24.07.2015 passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 2589 of 1994. By the said judgment, the learned Single Judge has allowed the writ petition after setting aside the order dated 06.02.1994 passed by the Joint Director-cum- Research Officer, Consolidation, Bihar, Patna by which he had set aside the order dated 11.05.1992 passed by the Deputy Director, Consolidation, Nalanda in Appeal Case No. 17 of 1990 and had restored the order of the Consolidation Officer dated 15.12.1989 passed in Consolidation Case No. 53 of 1989.

3. Short facts which emanate out of the records stand enumerated as under:–

The present appellants, i.e., the respondent Nos. 5 and 6 of the writ petition filed Partition Suit No. 140 of 1979 in the court of Subordinate Judge, Biharsharif for partition by carving out 1/3rd share in the joint family property. In view of the notification brought by the State of Bihar under Section 3 of the Bihar Consolidation of Holdings and Prevention of Fragmentation Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) declaring its intention to make a scheme for consolidation of holdings in the area concerned, the court below passed an order declaring that the partition suit would abate in view of the provisions contained in Section 4(c) of the Act. It was also mentioned that the parties may approach the consolidation authorities itself for partition of their share under Section 8A of the Act. As a result of which, the suit abated on 04.09.1980 under the aforesaid provision. According to the writ petitioners, the Consolidation Officer published the draft publication of register of land prepared under Section 9(2) and statement of principles prepared under Section 9A as per the provisions contained in Section 10 of the Act and objection was invited under Section 10(2). Since nobody raised any objection, the draft scheme was prepared under Section 11 of the Act which was finally published as per the provisions contained under Section 12 of the Act and, since nobody objected to it by filing any application under Section 12A of the Act, the scheme was confirmed and submitted to the Director, Consolidation under Section 13 of the Act. Thereafter, according to writ petitioners, certificates etc. were also distributed, however, the notification under Section 26A of the Act declaring closure of the consolidation operation was still awaited. Subsequently, in the year 1999, the appellants filed an application under Section 10- B of the Act before the Consolidation Officer claiming partition and also claiming that the property do not include any selfacquired property of late Hemraj Gope, as he was not having such type of property. It was claimed that said Hemraj Gope was trying to usurp the joint family property on the basis of the sale deed executed in favour of his grandson. Since at that point of time he was minor, therefore, the sale deed would be void and fraudulent as no minor can either transfer or get the properties transferred in his name and, in fact, late Hemraj Gope, who was vendor, was the guardian of his minor grandson, i.e., the vendee, and, as such, a fraud was committed and on the basis of such invalid/void transaction, it cannot be held that it was selfacquired property of his grandson. There were several other points also involved, for example, that the appellants claimed that they are co-owners and possessing the joint family property jointly and collectively.

4. On such petition having been filed under Section 10-B of the Act, Consolidation Case No. 53 of 1989 was registered. The Consolidation Officer rejected the claim of the appellantsrespondent Nos. 5 and 6 with respect to some Chaks, however, with respect to others, he ordered that the name of the respondent No. 5 should be entered as half co-sharers along with Basudeo Gope. An appeal bearing Consolidation Appeal No. 17 of 1990 was preferred by the appellants-re