The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of Rule 109a and Section 48 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, determining the jurisdiction of the Deputy Director of Consolidation to entertain and decide the revision.

SHITLA PRASAD SRIVASTAVA, J.

( 1 ) THIS petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, has been filed, by the petitioners for quashing the orders dated 8. 1. 1991 and 1. 3. 1988, passed by the Deputy Director of consolidation and Settlement Officer. Consolidation respectively. Further prayer has been made for issue of writ In the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent No. 1 (Deputy Director of Consolidation) to reconsider the case on merit and finally decide it.

( 2 ) THE brief facts as stated in the writ petition are that the petitioners were recorded in the basic year khatauni and the respondents were given joint chak over plot Nos. 7. 22 and 108. Respondents moved an application under Rule 109a (1) of the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings rules for partition before the consolidation court and the same was decided in their favour. On the basis of the orders dated 25. 8. 1976 and 12. 1. 1979, passed by the Deputy Director of consolidation and Consolidation Officer respectively, the respondent Nos. 3 to 6 moved an application for partition under Rule 109 of U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act. The application was allowed on 1. 3. 1979 in the absence of the petitioners. The petitioners on 27. 4. 1979 filed a restoration application recalling the order dated 1. 3. 1979. which was allowed on 27. 6. 1979. Against the order dated 27. 6. 1979, respondent Nos. 3 to 6 moved an application dated 20. 7. 1979. on the ground that ex parte order has been recalled by the Court concerned without giving opportunity of hearing to the respondents. On 11. 10. 1979, the Consolidation Officer allowed the application and set aside the order dated 27. 6. 1979. The application dated 27. 4. 1979 came for hearing again. It was rejected and dismissed in default of the petitioners by the Consolidation officer on 7. 10. 1982. Therefore, the order dated 27. 4. 1979. was upheld which was in favour of the respondents. In paragraph 5 of the writ petition it is stated that In the aforesaid case 6. 10. 1982, was the date fixed in the Court but on account of holiday, the Court was closed. On 7. 10. 1982, the petitioners could not appear and the case was dismissed in default. The petitioners again filed time-barred restoration application along with affidavit to condone the delay. The consolidation Officer on 22. 8. 1985, recalled the ex parte order dated 1. 3. 1979 and 7. 10. 1982, on payment of Rs. 50 as cost. The respondent Nos. 3 to 6 filed appeal before the respondent No. 2. Settlement Officer, Consolidation, who on 1. 3. 1988 quashed the order dated 22. 8. 1985 and restored the application dated 27. 4. 1979. A revision was filed by the petitioners against the order dated 1. 3. 1988 passed by the Settlement Officer. Consolidation on the ground that the Settlement officer. Consolidation has misinterpreted Rule 109a of the aforesaid Rules. The Deputy director of Consolidation decided the question of maintainability of the revision and held that the order passed by the appellate court under Rule 109a of the aforesaid rule was final and dismissed the revision as not maintainable. The petitioners have challenged this order by means of the present writ petition in this Court.

( 3 ) HEARD learned counsel for the parties, perused the record. From a perusal of the order passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation it is apparent that he dismissed the revision as not maintainable, firstly, on the ground that the order passed in appeal against the decision in proceeding under Rule 109a is final and, secondly, the village has been notified under Section 52 of the aforesaid Act, therefore, no revision is maintainable under Section 48 of the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act.

( 4 ) BEFORE discussing the argument of the learned counsel for the parties it is necessary to see the relevant Rule 109a of the aforesaid Rules, which is quoted herein below :

"109a. (1) Orders passed in cases covered by sub-section (2) of Section 52 shall be given effect by the co