Hon’ble Krishna Murari, J.—Heard Sri Abhishek Kumar learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Rahul Sahai appearing for the respondent No. 3.

2. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the writ petition is being disposed of at the admission stage.

3. The dispute relates to khata No. 245 situate in village Sikandarpur District Ballia. An objection under Section 9-A (2) of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act (for short the Act) was filed by the respondents which was allowed by the Consolidation Officer vide order dated 21.3.2003. Aggrieved, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Settlement Officer Consolidation, Ballia. Subsequently, on an application made by the petitioner the appeal was transferred to the court of Settlement Officer Consolidation, District Mau and came to be decided by order dated 1.2.2006. The respondents preferred a revision before Deputy Director of Consolidation Ballia against the order passed by Settlement Officer Consolidation District Mau. The petitioner raised an objection regarding the maintainability of the revision before the Deputy Director of Consolidation Ballia on the ground that he had no jurisdiction and the revision would lie only before Deputy Director of Consolidation Mau.

4. The Deputy Director of Consolidation, Ballia vide order dated 10.3.2006 overruled the objection and held that revision was maintainable before him.

5. It has been urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner that Deputy Director of Consolidation Ballia has no jurisdiction to hear the revision against the judgment of the Settlement Officer Consolidation Mau. Reliance in support of contention has been placed on a decision of learned Single Judge in the case of Darbari Lal v. District Deputy Director of Consolidation Jalaun, 1989 RD 304.

In reply it has been urged by the learned counsel for the respondents that since only appeal was transferred from Ballia to Mau to be heard by Settlement Officer Consolidation Mau, the property in dispute was situate in district Ballia, as such the Deputy Director of Consolidation Ballia will have jurisdiction to hear the revision. He has placed reliance on the judgment of learned single Judge in the case of Ram Das Rai v. Deputy Director of Consolidation, 1994 RD 62 and a Division Bench Judgment in the case of Shitla Prasad v. Deputy Director of Consolidation U.P. Lucknow, in camp at Faizabad and others 1970 RD 270.

6. I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. In the case of Darbari Lal (supra ) the property in dispute was situate in district Jalaun. The appeal filed against the order of Consolidation Officer was transferred from Jalaun to the Court of Settlement Officer Consolidation Kanpur. Against the appellate order passed by Settlement Officer Consolidation Kanpur, a revision was preferred before the Deputy Director of Consolidation Jaldun at Orai. Objection against the maintainability of the revision before the Deputy Director of Consolidation Jalaun at Orai was rejected and the matter came to this court. This court after considering the provision of the Act and Rules specially Section 48 and Rule III held that revisional court of Jalaun at Orai will have no jurisdiction to hear the revision against the order of the appellate authority of Kanpur. The facts of the case of Darbari Lal are identical to the fact of the present case and the law laid down in the said case applies with full force.

7. In so far as the case of Ram Das Rai relied upon by the learned counsel for the respondents is concerned the same is clearly distinguishable. In the case of Ram Das Rai the Consolidation Commissioner transferred some appeals pending in the court of Settlement Officer Consolidation Deoria to Sri Ram Chandra Yadav, Settlement officer Consolidation, Gorakhpur with a direction that he would hold camp at Deoria and decide the appeals. Against the appellate order revision