K. P. Singh, J. - (1.) The dispute between the parties in the present writ petition relates to agricultural land situate in village Kodari Nadhogarh, district Jalaun. The opposite party No. 2 Allah Tala had filed an objection under Section 9 (2) of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) leading to case No. 13229 which was decided against the opposite party No. 2 through the judgment dated 28-4-1980. Aggrieved by the judgment of the consolidation officer, the opposite party No. 2 had preferred an appeal before the settlement officer of consolidation, Jalaun at Orai which was numbered as 436 of 1980. On the application of the petitioner the aforesaid appeal was transferred to the court of the settlement officer of consolidation, Kanpur who dismissed the appeal of the opposite party No. 2 through his judgment dated 29-5-1984. Against the aforesaid judgment the opposite party No. 2 filed a revision petition numbered as 680 of 1984 under Section 48 of the Act in the court of the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Jalaun at Orai. An objection had been filed by the petitioner that the revisional court had no jurisdiction to hear the revision petition. The revisional court has not accepted the contention of the petitioner through his order dated 20-12-1987. Aggrieved by the order of the revisional court the petitioner has approached this court under Article 226 of the Constitution.
(2.) The petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs:- (i) To issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated 20-1-1987 (Annexure III) passed by respondent No. 1 and proceedings in revision No. 680 of 1984 pending in the court of respondent No. 1. (ii) To issue a writ order or direction in the nature of Mandamus by commanding the respondent No. 1 not to proceed further with the revision No. 680 of 1984 pending in the court of respondent No. 1. (iii) To issue any other further order or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. (iv) To award the costs of the writ petition.
(3.) The main grievance of the petitioner before me is that the Dy. Director of Consolidation, Jalaun at Orai has no jurisdiction to hear the revision petition against the judgment of the appellate authority of Kanpur in the facts and circumstances of the present case.;