V.G. Oak, J. - (1.) THIS special appeal arises out of consolidation proceedings. Certain tenancy holdings be -, longed to one Maiku. Upon his death, there were rival claims for succession to the tenancy property. One claim was by two brothers, Dayal and Hanumant. Another claimant was Srimati Chhedana. The Consolidation Officer upheld the claim of Srimati Chhedana. The claim of Dayal and Hanumant was rejected. An appeal by Dayal and Hanumant was dismissed on 3 -1 -1964 by the Settlement Officer Consolidation. They filed a second appeal. It was dismissed on 24 -4 -1965 by the Deputy Director of Consolidation. A revision was dismissed on 3 -7 -1965. Against these decisions, a writ petition was filed by Dayal and Hanumant. The writ petition has been allowed by a learned single Judge of this Court on 18 -11 -1966. He quashed the two orders, dated 24 -4 -1965 and 3 -7 -1965, and directed that the second appeal should be heard on merits. Srimati Chhedana has filed this special appeal against the order of the learned single Judge, dated 18 -11 -1966.
(2.) IT is to be noted that the learned single Judge has revived the second appeal, which had been dismissed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation on 24 -4 -1965. The question for consideration is whether the second appeal has been properly revived. It may be pointed out that the second appeal was not decided on merits. The sole reason for dismissing the second appeal was that the Appellants did not file copies of judgments of the lower courts as promised. According to the learned single Judge, that reasoning is not sound. Mr. K. Misra, appearing for the Appellant in the special appeal, supported the order of the Deputy Director of Consolidation, and relied upon paragraph 161 of the Revenue Court Manual. Paragraph 161 of the Revenue Court Manual states: ...The memorandum shall be accompanied by copies of the decree or order appealed from and of the judgments or orders passed in the case by all the courts subordinate to the court to which the memorandum of appeal is presented. It is obvious that in the present case Dayal and Hanumant did not comply with paragraph 161 of the Revenue Court Manual, when they presented the second appeal before the Deputy Director of Consolidation. The question is whether Dayal and Hanumant were required to comply with paragraph 161 of the Revenue Court Manual. The second appeal was under the UP Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953. Section 41 of that Act makes the provisions of Chs. IX and X of the UP Land Revenue Act, 1901, applicable to all appeals under the UP Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953. Ch. IX of the Land Revenue Act lays down the procedure of revenue courts and revenue officers. Ch. X of the Land Revenue Act provides for appeals, reference and revision. It was conceded for the Appellant that para. 161 of the Revenue Court Manual does not fall directly within Chs. IX and X of the Land Revenue Act. But it has been suggested for the Appellant that para. 161 of the Revenue Court Manual should be treated as part of Ch. X of the Land Revenue Act.
(3.) THIS question came up for consideration in Salik Ram v. Joint Director of Consolidation, 1966 AWR 311. It was held by Sahgal, J. that the provisions of the Revenue Court Manual are not applicable to the proceedings under the UP Consolidation of Holdings Act.;