Gaon Sabha Raksaha through its pradhan Sri Jaishiri Sharma filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution challenging the judgment and order dated February 20, 1980 of the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Ghazipur.

The dispute in this case relates to Plot Nos. 1949 and 1946 situate in village Rakshah, Pargana Zamaniya, District Ghazipur. Thesa plots were recorded as pokhari in the Khatauni of several successive Fasli years. In the year 1970, the consolidation operations started in this village. It is stated that one Habibullah was the Pradhan of Gaon Sabha and he was relation of Tayab Khan, opposite party No. 2 to this petition. Tayab Khan applied for mutation of his name before the Tahsildar under Sections 33/39 of the U. P. Land Revenue Act. The Sub-Divisional Officer by an order dated 8th February, 1963 directed his name to be recorded as an Asami in Class III. Later, pro-casdiags under Rule 115-C of the U. P. Zamindari Abolition aad Land Reforms Rules were initiated by the Gaon Sabha for ejectment of the opposite party No. 2 from this land. The Tahsildar dropped these proceedings on the ground that a bona fidz question of title was involved. The case of the Gaon Sabha was that it had no knowledge of the order of the Sub- Divisional Officer dated 18th February, 1963, of whicti proceedings the Gaon Sabha had no notice and it was only upon the inspection of the consolidation records on 11th July, 1979 that it was revealed that the opposite party No. 2 had manipulated the incorrect entries in his favour in respect of the land in question and that soon thereafter objections under Section 9-A (2) of the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act was filed by the Gaon Sabha. Along with this objection, an application for condonation of delay duly supported by an affidavit of Sri Jaishri Sharma Pradhan was also filed. Counter and rejoinder affidavits were filed and ulti mately the consolidation officer by his order dated h December, 1979 condon ed the deliy in favour of Gaon Sabha. The Consolidation Officer also further held that prima facie it was established that the land was Pokhari and as such was in public use. Aggrieved the opposite party No. 2 filed a revision ander Section 48 of the Act against the order of the Consolidation Officer dated 6th December, 1979 condoning the delay in filing objection. The Deputy Director of Consolidation by his judgment dated 20th February, 1908 allowed the revi sion and set aside the order of the Consolidation Officer dated 6th December, 1979. It is this judgment and order of the Deputy Director of Consolidation which has been impugned in the present petition.

Shri K. B. Garg, Learned Counsel appearing for Gaon Sabha, has submit ted that, in fact, an appeal lay against the order dated 6th December, 1979 and no revision lay directly before the Deputy Director of Consolidation under Section 48 of the Act and hence, the order of the Deputy Director of Consoli dation was without jurisdiction.

I find no force in the submission of the learned counsel. The order dated 6th December, 1979 passed by the Consolidation Officer against which revision was filed before the Deputy Director of Consolidation was an order passed on the application was under Section 5 of the Limitation Act whereby the delay in filing the objection was condoned. The order itself did not dispose of objec tions. After condoning the delay, a date had been fixed for further proceedings. An appeal under Section 11 hes to the Settlement Officer Consolidation against the order of the Assistant Consolidation Officer, or the Consolidation Officer under Section 9-A of the Act. The order condoning the delay on the applica tion under Section 5 of the Limitation Act was not an order under Section 9-A of the Act. No Appeal hence lay. Section 48 of the Act confers power upon the Deputy Director of Consolidation to reach the facts and law and every kind of order passed by consolidation authorities subordinate to him. Clearly