Jagdish Sahai, J. - (1.) THIS writ petition which is directed against the judgment of the Dy. Director Consolidation, Lucknow, (in camp at Faizabad), is pressed on the sole ground that the revision application from which it arises not having been transferred by the District Dy. Director of Consolidation Faizabad to the Dy. Director Consolidation who decided it could not have been heard and disposed of by him and that his judgment is void for that reason. Reliance is placed upon Rule 65(1 -A) of the Rules framed under the UP Consolidation of Holdings Act (hereinafter referred to as Rules) in support of a submission by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner. That rule reads: 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, or recall any case pending before any other officer from the file of that officer to his own file. (2) The Director of Consolidation may withdraw any case from the file of any Settlement Officer (Consolidation) for disposal. (Italicised by us) The submission of the learned Counsel for the Petitioner is that the officer hearing a revision application gets jurisdiction to hear it by the authority of the order of transfer of the case to his file by the District Deputy Director of Consolidation. In support of his contention he places reliance upon Saheb Lal v. Dy. Director of Consolidation UP and Ors., 1966 AWR 636 Balbhadra and Anr. v. Assistant Director of Consolidation, 1967 AWR 86, Brij Bahadur Lal v. Dy. Director of Consolidation, 1968 RD 210 decided by B.N. Nigam, J., Shanker v. Dy. Director of Consolidation UP, 1967 RD 50 decided by R.N. Sharma, J., Baqar and Chheda v. Dy. Director of Consolidation, 1967 AWR 566 and Bhai Lal v. District Dy. Director of Consolidation UP and Ors., 1967 RD 275 decided by L.P. Nigam, J. Reliance is also placed upon the unreported decision of Sahgal, J., in writ petition No. 220 of 1967 Narpat and Anr. v. Parag and others, decided on 17 -7 -1968.
(2.) ADMITTEDLY and clearly there is no provision in the Act dealing with the power of transfer. The short answer to the submission of the learned Counsel is that inasmuch as Rule 65(1 -A) speaks of the case being transferred to an "officer empowered to hear such case", it clearly follows that the officer to whom the case is transferred has already got jurisdiction to hear and decide the case and that Rule 65(1 -A) does not deal with conferment of jurisdiction at all.
(3.) WITH great respect to the learned single Judges who decided the case mentioned above this aspect of the matter and the clear language of Rule 65(1 -A) has been lost sight of by them.;