K. N. Misra, J. - (1.) THIS writ petition is directed against the impugned orders passed by the Assistant Director of Consolidation and Assistant Settlement Officer, (C), Jaunpur.
(2.) BRIEFLY stated the facts of the case are that Ram Lakhan Pathak, opp. party No. 3 was the bhumidhar of the land in question. He is said to have executed a sale deed dated 10-1-1972 in favour of Dharam Raj and Manik Raj, opp. parties Nos. 4 and 5 who, on the basis of the aforesaid sale deed, applied for the mutation under Sec. 12 of the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, before the Assistant Consolidation Officer. The petitioners, Jairam and Rajdev also claimed to have purchased the same land in question from opp. party No. 3, Ram Lakhan Pathak, through another sale deed dated 12-8-1977. They filed objection under Sec. 12 of the said Act before the Asstt. Consolidation Officer. The Asstt. Consolidation Officer is said to have passed an order of mutation in favour of the petitioners on 8-2-1979. But no order of mutation was passed nor any action was taken by him on the earlier mutation application filed by opp. parties Nos. 4 & 5. When the opp. parties Nos. 4 and 5 came to know about the aforesaid mutation order, they applied to the Asstt. Consolidation Officer for passing mutation order in their favour, on their mutation application. This was rejected by the Asstt Consolidation Officer, vide his order dt. 19-3-79 saying that since he has already passed the mutation order in respect of the same land in question hence he cannot pass an order on the mutation application filed by opp. parties Nos. 4 & 5. He, however, directed them to file an appeal against the said order before the Settlement Officer (C). Thereafter the opp. parties Nos. 4 and 5 filed two appeals ; one, appeal was directed against the mutation order dt. 8-2-79 passed by the Asstt. Consolidation Officer in favour of the petitioners and another appeal was directed against the order dt. 17-3-79 by which the Asstt. Consolidation Officer rejected the application of the opp. parties Nos. 4 and 5. Both these appeals were heard together by the Assistant : Settlement Officer (C) and the same were allowed by him vide order dt. 13-8-79 awarding Rs. 20 as costs to the petitioners and the case was remanded to the court of Asstt. Consolidation Officer for a fresh decision on merits. Against this order the petitioners had filed two revisions before the Dy. Director of Consolidation under Sec. 48 of the Act which were heard by Asstt. Director of Consolidation, opp. party No. 1 and the same were dismissed on 13th Oct., 80 and the orders passed by the Settlement Officer (C) was maintained. It is against these two orders the petitioners have preferred this writ petition. The learned counsel for the petitioners contended that since the opp. parties Nos. 4 and 5 were not parties to their case, hence no appeal could be filed by them against the order dt. 8-2-79 and the Asstt. Settlement Officer (C) opp. party No. 2, therefore, acted illegally in allowing the appeal and remanding the case to the Consolidation Officer on merits. So far as the appeal filed against the order dt. 29-3-79 was concerned, the learned counsel for the petitioners has not challenged its maintainability before me. His contention is that since the appeal was not maintainable against the order of mutation dt. 8-2-79 passed in favour of the petitioners ; hence the remand orders passed by the S.O. (C) is illegal and without jurisdiction. I do not find any merit in this submission. It is not disputed that a mutation application was filed u/S. 12 of the said Act by the opp. parites Nos. 4 & 5 before the Asstt. Consolidation Officer on 6-3-1976 and that the petitioners had also filed a mutation application subsequently on 17-9-77. In view of this fact, two mutation applications, in respect of the same property, were pending before the Asstt. Consolidation Officer who is said to have decided the case of the petitioners by his order dt. 8-2-79. Rule 25 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Rules (hereinafter referred to as the Rules) provides that : " Cases relating to each of the two categories mentioned in clause (e) of sub-rule (2) shall be entered in chronological order in a Misilband register in C.H. Form 7 to be maintained by each Asstt. Consolidation Officer." In view of this provision the Asstt. Consolidation Officer should have entered both the mutation applications in Misilband register which were relating to same land pending before him. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the provisions contained in Rule 25 do not apply to mutation case filed under Sec. 12 and they need not be entered in Misilband register. He referred to Rule 30 of the rules which provides that:- "The form in which the matters mentioned in Sec. 12 of the Act may be raised before the Asstt. Consolidation Officer shall be in C. H. Form 6-C" and "The procedure laid down in rules 25-A to 27 and 29 shall mutatis mutandis, be followed in deciding matters raised before the Asstt. Consolidation Officer under Sec. 12". Referring to this rule, he has submitted that the Asstt. Consolidation Officer was not required to record in the chronological order both the aforesaid applications under Sec. 12 of the Act filed before him because Rule 25 has not been referred in Rule 30 of the Rules. I do not find any substance in this argument. Rule 25 provides the procedure to be followed by the Asstt. Consolidation Officer in maintaining the record of all the cases in Misilband Register in C. H. Form 7 which are filed before him. No case can be kept by him without entering in Misilband Register, be it a mutation case or any other type of case. In the mutation case also rights and title are claimed by the objection in the land and the case filed before the Asstt. Consolidation Officer has got to be entered in Misilband Register as required under Rule 25. The said rule provides that the case of one specified nature should be registered in chronological order in a Misilband register in C. H. Form 7 and that register has to be maintained by the Assistant Consolidation Officer. This being so the Assistant Consolidation Officer should have entered both these cases in C. H. Form 7 and he should have dealt with those case together relating to same land. The Rule 30 does not absolve the Assistant Consolidation Officer from the duty and responsibility of maintaining record in Misilband Register of all the mutation cases filed before him. The learned counsel further argued that since the opp. parties Nos. 4 and 5 were not the parties to the case ; hence they could not file appeal against the order dt. 8-2-79. I do not find any merit in this submission. It is not disputed that the application under Sec. 12 of the Act, for mutation, was filed earlier by the opp. parties Nos. 4 and 5 which was pending before the Asstt. Consolidation Officer since prior to the filing of the mutation application, by the petitioners. The Assistant Consolidation Officer has been conferred jurisdiction to decide the case under the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act when it is an undisputed case. But he has no jurisdiction to decide the case when the case is disputed one. The petitioners had also filed mutation application in respect of the very land before the Asstt. Consolidation Officer. Therefore, both the parties were contending to be entitled to the mutation in respect of the same land on the basis of the sale deed which, they asserted to be valid entitling them to get their names mutated. In this view of the matter it cannot be said that the petitioners were not contending parties in the case before the Asstt. Consolidation Officer claiming mutation in respect of same land. There were two applications pending before the Asstt. Consolidation Officer. The Assistant Consolidation Officer had no jurisdiction to pass orders in either of them as two sets of claimants had applied for mutation before him in respect of same land. He could not proceed to decide only one case under Rule 25-A of the Rules as he has done in this case. The order passed by the Asstt. Consolidation Officer was, therefore per se without jurisdiction and the opp. parties Nos. 4 and 5 had every right to file appeal against the order. The Asstt. Consolidation Officer, on being apprised of this position, passed an order dated 8-2-79 directing the opp. parties Nos. 4 and 5 to file appea, against that order. He had rightly done so. He could not pass a second mutation order unless earlier mutation ordes was set aside. The opp. parties Nos. 4 and 5 who had applied for mutation before the Asstt. Consolidation Officer and which was pending, were thus entitled to challenge the mutation order dated 8-2-79 and the opp. party No. 2, the Assistant Settlement Officer (C) had rightly allowed the appeal filed by opp. parties Nos. 4 and 5 by allowing costs of Rs. 20/- which is said to have been received by the counsel for the petitioners. In this view of the matter the petitioners were not entitled to challenge the orders passed by the opp. party No. 2. The Dy. Director of Consolidation has taken into consideration all the arguments advanced on behalf of the petitioners. Thus, I do not find any infirmity in the impugned orders passed by the opp. parties Nos. 1 & 2 nor they suffer from any error of fact, law or jurisdiction. This writ petition is devoid of merit and is, accordingly, dismissed in limini. Petition dismissed.;