Jagdish Sahai, J. - (1.) THIS special appeal is directed against the judgment of Oak, J. dated 20.1.1960, dismissing summarily Writ Petition No. 92 of 1960. The only point that the learned Counsel for the Appellant has urged before us is that the order of remand dated 26.12.1958 was not properly complied with by the consolidation authorities. What had happened was that statement of plots Under Section 11 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act [hereinafter referred to as the Act] was prepared and published. The Appellant filed an objection Under Section 12 of the Act, which was dismissed. In exercise of revisional jurisdiction the proceedings Under Section 12 of the Act and the publication Under Section 11 of the Act were quashed and the case was remanded by the Deputy Director Consolidation. On remand the statement of plots under Section 11 was amended only to the extent to which it was objected to. Learned Counsel for the Appellant contends that the law does not envisage a partial amendment or a partial preparation of the statement of plots Under Section 11 of the Act. He adds that after the case had been remanded, even though in some respects the statement of plots was correct, the whole of it should have been reframed and republished. We are unable to agree. It was not necessary to republish and reframe the whole statement and it was sufficient compliance with the order dated 26.12. 1958 to reprepare and republish only that part of the statement of plots which related to the Petitioner and in respect of which there was an objection. No other submission was made before us.
(2.) WE are satisfied that there are no merits in this special appeal. It is accordingly dismissed with costs.;