Janardan Sahai, J. - (1.) The petitioner's case is that objections under section 9 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings, Act were filed by one Bindeshwari, now represented by the petitioners. The objections were dismissed by the Consolidation Officer on 25.8.1967 but the appeal filed by the petitioners against that order was allowed by the Settlement Officer, Consolidation on 8.11.1971 and the revision against that order was dismissed by the Dy. Director of Consolidation on 20.9.1972 and the writ petition was also filed, which too was dismissed on 3.8.1981 and thereafter the petitioners filed two applications (in respect of two villages) for giving effect to the order of the Settlement Officer Consolidation as affirmed upto the stage of the High Court. The applications filed by the petitioners were dismissed by the Consolidation Officer on 17.12.1988 and on 24.12.1988. Against these orders two revision were filed, which have been dismissed by the Dy. Director of Consolidation vide impugned order dated 24.7.1990 on the ground that these orders passed by the Consolidation Officer were appealable. Aggrieved the petitioners have filed the present petition.
(2.) I have heard Sri S.K. Shukla Counsel for the petitioners and Sri B.D. Misra holding brief of Sri. D.V. Jaiswal Counsel for the respondent.
(3.) Rule 109-A of the U.P. Consolidation of Holding Rules provides that an application to give effect to the orders passed in case covered by sub-section (2) of section 52 would be given effect to by the Consolidation Authorities. Sub-rule (2) of that Rule provides that if for the purpose of giving effect to any order referred to in sub-rule (1) it becomes necessary to reallocate affected chaks, necessary orders may be passed by the Consolidation Officer or the Tehsildar, as the case may be, after affording proper opportunity of hearing to H the parties concerned. Sub-Rule (3) of the Rule provides for an appeal only against the order of the Consolidation Officer passed under sub-rule (2). It is thus clear that no appeal against the order of the Consolidation Officer is provided in case the order passed under section 52 sub-section (2) can be given effect to without reallocation of chaks. There is also no provision for appeal against an order rejecting an application under Rule 109-A. Counsel for the parties are on a common ground that the Consolidation Officer did not pass any order of reallocation of chaks. The application of the petitioners under sub-rule 109-A was rejected by the Consolidation Officer which was the order under challenge before the Dy. Director of Consolidation. In the circumstances no appeal lay under Rule 109 sub-rule (3) and the view taken by the Dy. Director of Consolidation does not appeal to be correct. That apart even if an appeal is maintainable, the Dy. Director of Consolidation has wide powers under section 48 of the Act to entertain a revision. A division Bench of this Court in Faujdar v. Dy. Director of Consolidation, 2006 (100) RD 462, has taken the view that the Dy. Director of Consolidation can exercise revisional jurisdiction under section 48 against an appealable order passed by the Consolidation Officer where no appeal has been filed. The revisions filed by the petitioners were under section 48 of the Act. Considering the fact that the matter is a very old one, it is appropriate that the Dy. Director of Consolidation decides the matter.;