B.N.Nigam, J. - (1.) Ram Shanker has filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution praying for a writ of certiorari quashing the orders passed by the Consolidation Officer, the Settlement Officer, Consolidation, the Deputy Director of Consolidation and the Commissioner on the grounds set forth in the petition, orders being embodied in annexures 2 to 7.
(2.) Several preliminary objections have been raised. The first preliminary objection is that the petitioner has made incorrect statements in paragraphs 19 and 20 and another paragraph 20.(Two paragraphs bear the number 20). In all these three paragraphs the petitioner mentions only the first appeal, only one second appeal and only revision. From annexures 6, 7, and 8 it appears that 26 first appeals were filed by Ram Shanker, all of them were dismissed. From Annexure 7 it appears that 14 second appeals were filed and all of them were dismissed. From Annexures 8 it appears that 13 connected revisions were filed and all of them were dismissed. According to paragraph 1 only the case of Nathu is not before this court. It, therefore, appears to me that the petitioner should have filed at least 13 writ petitions and he could not have raised the whole matter in one writ petition. The argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that as he held the land under one Patta, therefore the petitioner filed only one writ petition. That may be so. This writ petition can relate to only one order passed in annexure 8, i.e., the order passed in one revision application. As such, this preliminary objection must prevail. As the order in 12 revision application has become final, there can be no interference in the 13th case. It also appears that the petitioner has sought no relief against the order embodied in annexure 8.
(3.) It is, therefore, not necessary for me to hear the petitioner's learned counsel on merits. I, therefore, see no force in this writ petition and dismiss it with costs.;