Krishna Murari, J. - (1.) HEARD learned counsel for the petitioner and learned standing counsel.
(2.) THOUGH the case has been taken up in revised list no one appeared for respondent No. 2. Shorn of unnecessary details, the facts relevant for the purpose of the case are that village was notified for consolidation operations in 1962. The petitioner filed an objection under Section 9 of the Act claiming Sirdari rights over the land in dispute which was dismissed by Consolidation Officer. Appeal filed by him was also dismissed by the Settlement Officer Consolidation. Feeling aggrieved the petitioner filed a revision before the Deputy Director Consolidation.
(3.) UNDER a misconception that since proceedings were initiated under the unamended Act which provided for a Second Appeal before Deputy Director of Consolidation and thereafter a revision before Director of Consolidation, the petitioner moved an application dated 17.12.1968 for converting the revision into the Second Appeal which was allowed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation and on the same day he decided the revision treating it to be an appeal. Aggrieved by the said order the petitioner preferred a revision which came to be dismissed vide impugned order dated 5.7.1982 as not maintainable.;