R.N.Sharma, J. - (1.) This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for a writ of certiorari quashing the judgment and orders passed by opposite parties No. 1, 3 and 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has conceded that if the order passed by opposite party No. 1 in revision is set aside and the case is sent back for rehearing of the revision, the question of quashing of the orders of opposite parties Nos. 3 and 4 does not arise because the validity of these orders can be considered in revision. This writ petition is now confined to the consideration of the validity of the order of opposite party No. 1 alone.
(2.) The facts stated in the writ petition are supported by an affidavit which is not controverted as none of the opposite parties has turned up to contest this writ petition. It would appear that the petitioner had filed a revision against the order of the Assistant Settlement Officer (Consolidation), before the District Deputy Director of Consolidation. Rule 111 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Rules lays down that an application under Section 48 of the Act shall be presented by the applicant to the District Deputy Director of Consolidation. Thus the revision application was properly presented to the District Deputy Director of Consolidation. However, the Additional District Magistrate (Judicial) of the same district transferred it to the Regional Deputy Director of Consolidation. I am unable to understand how the Additional District Magistrate (Judicial) was competent to pass an order of transfer. He was not a competent authority under the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act. Under Rule 65 (1-A) the officer before whom appeals, revisions or references under the provisions of the Act or these rules are instituted may transfer any case instituted or pending before him to any other officer empowered to hear and decide such case. It was thus the District Deputy Director of Consolidation alone who could transfer the revision to another officer. Then another serious error occurred in this case. The revision was transferred to the Regional Deputy Director who was one Sri R.D. Maheshwari. However, the revision was heard by a Deputy Director, Sri R.L. Sharma who was not the Regional Deputy Director. I have it from the affidavit of the petitioner that the objection regarding the competence of Sri R.L. Sharma to hear the revision, was raised before him whereupon he got annoyed and did not determine the question of jurisdiction. He did not even mention this objection in his order. In the circumstances, Sri R.L. Sharma was wholly incompetent to hear or dispose of the revision and the impugned order passed by him was without jurisdiction.
(3.) The order of the Deputy Director being without jurisdiction, it must be set aside.;