Ashwani Kumar Singh, J.—Heard Mr. Anand Kumar Ojha, learned counsel for the appellants and Mr. Naresh Chandra Verma, learned counsel for the respondent no.3. Mr. Harun Kuraishi, learned AC to SC- 1 submitted that the State is a formal party in the present case.

2. The instant intra-court appeal has been filed by the petitioners/appellants challenging the order dated 15.09.2014 passed by the learned single Judge in C.W.J.C. No. 14475 of 2007 whereby he has dismissed the writ application. The operative part of the aforestated order dated 15.09.2014 reads as under:—

“9. Having considered the rival contentions of the parties let us examine the first objection raised by the petitioners that it suffers from principle of res-judicata/construction res-judicata. From the submission and record of the case it appears that objection filed by the petitioners under Section10(2) and 10(4) of the Act was rejected on the ground of limitation which was affirmed by the appellate stage but the revisional court remanded back the matter. When the revisional court has remanded back the matter then in that circumstance it cannot be said that the order passed by the Consolidation Officer rejecting the objection petition on the ground of delay has attend finality and will have any bearing on the merit of the case. Had there been adjudication by the appellate court the petitioners would have a right to claim that proceeding suffers from resjudicata as from the record it appears that even at the Deputy Director level he has not decided the case and the case remained pending without any decision. If the appellate authority has not decided the case one way or the other and respondent rightly approached the Director under Section 35 of the Act after abatement of Section 4A of the Act. This Court is of the view that the proceeding before Director under Section 35 of the Act does not suffer from res-judicata. The judgments relied by the petitioners are not applicable to the present case. Accordingly the submission raised by the petitioners is not sustainable in the eye of law.

10. So far right-title is concerned, petitioners have not disputed the fact that they belonged to the same family and the properties in question are joint family property. Petitioners have only argued on the points of res-rejucata/construction res-judicata and have not argued the case on merit of the case with regard to share. The construction of Section 35 of the Act provides wide power and the parties aggrieved can straight way approach to the revisional court and in a proper case, if revisional court feels that justice has not been done to the parties, he will pass the order in accordance with law.

11. In this view of the matter, this Court does not find any merit in this writ petition. It is accordingly dismissed.”

3. In the writ application, the petitioners/appellants had sought for quashing of the order dated 23.08.2007 passed by the respondent Joint Director, Consolidation, Muzaffarpur in Revision Case No. 43 of 2006 in exercise of powers conferred under Section 35 of the Bihar Consolidation of Holdings and Prevention of Fragmentation Act, 1956 (for short ‘the Consolidation Act’).

4. Mr. Anand Kumar Ojha, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners/appellants submitted that the learned single Judge committed an error in dismissing the writ application without deciding the frontal issue of lack of jurisdiction raised by the writ petitioners that the Joint Director has absolutely no jurisdiction to review the order dated 18.04.1985 passed in Consolidation Revision Case Nos. 932 of 1082 and 1403 of 1982. He contended that the Joint Director, Consolidation measurably failed to appreciate the settled principles of law regarding constructive res-judicata and limitation of review. According to him, the order impugned amounts to review of the previous order passed by the then Joint Director Consolidation two decades back. He further contended that the learned single Judge failed to appreciat