B.N.Nigam, J. - (1.)Srimati Krishna Devi has filed this petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution claiming a writ of certiorari quashing C.H. Form No. 23 and the orders passed by opposite parties Nos. 1 to 3.
(2.)It is not necessary for me to go into details. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and the only point urged before me is that the order of the Settlement Officer Consolidation dated Feb. 21, 1964, copy annexure 3, is incorrect in as much as the rules did not require filing of a copy of the trial court's judgment along with the appeal. The position has not been contested by the learned counsel opposite. In the circumstances it appears to me that the Settlement Officer Consolidation was wrong in not deciding the appeal on merits. This is also mentioned in the order of the Deputy Director, Consolidation. A decision by the Deputy Director Consolidation is no substitute for the appellate decision by the Settlement Officer Consolidation in as much as the Settlement Officer, Consolidation is authorised to make a local inspection which normally a Deputy Director of Consolidation does not. In the circumstances I accept this writ petition and quash the orders copies of which are annexures 3 and 5. I direct that the appeal be restored to its original number before the Settlement Officer Consolidation and disposed of on merits after notice to the parties. The petitioner shall get her costs from opposite parties Nos. 9 to 11. Petition allowed.