B.N.Nigam, J. - (1.) Srimati Haliman has filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution praying for a writ of certiorari quashing the judgments and orders dated January 31, 1964, February 14, 1964 and January 8, 1965, copies being annexures 3, 4 and 6 respectively.
(2.) In the petition I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for opposite parties 6 to 12.
(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner has confined his prayer to the quashing of the order dated January 8, 1965. Only one argument has been pressed before me and it is that this proceeding was filed as a revision. Though it was registered by the District Deputy Director, yet it was disposed of by Sri S.G. Misra, opposite party No. 2. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that Sri S.G. Misra was never authorised by the Director to hear second appeals. As the dispute originated before the enforcement of U.P. Act VIII of 1963, no revision application lay against the orders of the Settlement Officer (Consolidation) but a second appeal lay. The question is whether this revision application could have been converted into a second appeal by opposite party No. 2. The ordinary presumption under Section 114 of the Indian Evidence Act will extend only to the extent that opposite party No. 2 had full right and authority to decide the revision under Section 48 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act. As he did not decide the matter as second appeal, there can be no presumption that he was also authorised to dispose of a second appeal under the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act as it stood prior to its amendment by U.P. Act VIII of 1963.;