SHITLA PRASAD SRLVASTAVA, J.

( 1 ) HEARD Sri S. 5. Tripathi learned counsel for the petitioner.

( 2 ) BY means of this wrtt petition, the petitioner has sought the relief for quashing of the impugned orders dated 25. 2. 1997 and 19. 6. 1995 passed by the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 respectively (Annexures-4 and 2 to the writ petition ). The revision which was filed by the petitioner before the Deputy Director of Consolidation was against the order passed by the settlement Officer, Consolidation exercising powers of the appellate authority. The appellant court in the appeal filed under Section 11 of the U. P. Consolidation of Land Holdings Act granted Interim order, which was challenged by the petitioner in revision under Section 48 of the act.

( 3 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner urged that there is no doubt that the order passed by the appellate authority s interlocutory order but nevertheless the order passed by the appellate authority is not under the provisions of the U. P. Consolidation of Land Holdings Act and there is no specific provision in the U. P. Consolidation of Land Holdings Act for grant of stay order nor the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure are applicable,

Click Here to Read the rest of this document