Chakradhari Sharan Singh, J. – These matters have been placed before the Full Bench in the light of a reference made by this Court vide order dated 08.11.1988 passed in CWJC No. 4631 of 1986. An order passed in CWJC No. 4572 of of 1986 has been noticed in the reference order, whereby the said case was referred to a Division Bench for consideration as to whether this Court’s decision in the case of Shyam Bihari Upadhyay & Ors. vs. State of Bihar & Ors. (AIR 1985 Patna 275) lays down the correct law.

2. On a careful reading of the order sheet of CWJC No. 4572 of 1986, we, however, find that though the said writ petition was directed to be heard by a Division Bench, there is no mention of doubting the correctness of the decision rendered in the case of Shyam Bihari Upadhyay & Ors. (supra). In order to appreciate the core legal issues raised in the reference order, it is deemed apt to reproduce the reference order, which reads as under: –

" The fate of this application depends to a very great extent on the interpretation put to Section 13 and 35 of the Bihar Consolidation of Holdings and Prevention of Fragmentation Act. Section 13 of the Act inter alia, says that after the draft consolidation scheme is confirmed and is published in the unit it shall become final except as otherwise provided by or under this Act. In this case undisputedly the draft consolidation scheme was confirmed and was published in the unit as no objection with regard to the chak in question was ever raised by the parties. After a lapse of several years respondent nos. 3 and 4 filed an application under section 35 of the Consolidation Act which was disposed of by the Joint Director Consolidation holding that the land in question belonged to respondent nos. 3 and 4 and directing the authorities to dealienate the land from the chak of the petitioner and enter the same in the khata of respondent nos. 3 and 4. According to the decision in the case of Shyam Bihari Upadhyay and others, petitioners vs. State of Bihar and others respondents (A.I.R. 1985 Patna 275) the Director has unbridled power to interfere under Section 35 of the Act. Learned counsel for the respondents, therefore, says that the order is absolutely lawful and valid. In case there is restrain on the part of the Director under Section 35 of the Act, then he could pass this order but I feel that the Director also has to act under some limit while exercising powers under Section 35 of the Consolidation Act. Section 35 clearly says that the Director may call for and examine the record of any case decided or proceedings taken by the authorities 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 the authorities in the case or proceedings. This provision, therefore empowers the revisional authority to call for records of a case or proceedings where there was dispute between the parties at the lower level. If there was no dispute between the parties with respect to any particular piece of land then there was no case or proceedings, the records of which the Director can call for. Section 35 only empowers the director to call for the records and correct the mistake committed by the authorities under the Act. This section does not envisage in my view, to give an opportunity to the parties to create a lis and thereafter call for the records for the purpose of deciding the same between the parties. Admittedly objections were filed by the respondents' ancestors under section 10 of the Consolidation Act. Also admittedly the petitioners were not parties to that objection and perhaps in the objection the lands in question were also not included. It appears that the lands in question were for the first time included in the objection under Section 35 of the Act by way of amendment. Be that as it may, there was certainly no lis between the parties with regard to the lands in question before the matter was entertained by the