Hon’ble A.P. Sahi, J.—Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.

2. An appeal under Section 11 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 was pending in relation to the holding in dispute in the District of Gorakhpur. The holding is also situate within the District of Gorakhpur. The appeal was transferred for decision to the appellate authority in another District, namely, District of Maharajganj. The appeal has been decided and has gone adverse to the petitioner. The petitioner has now filed a revision before the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Maharajganj. The prayer made in this petition is that a mandamus be issued to transfer the said revision to the Deputy Director of Consolidation Gorakhpur.

3. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and having perused the judgment of this Court in the case of Parshuram v. Deputy Director of Consolidation, Ballia and others, 2006(4) ADJ 322, the law is now settled that a revision would lie before the Deputy Director of Consolidation of the district where the appeal had been originally filed and not before the Deputy Director of Consolidation of the transferee district.

4. Accordingly, the petitioner ought to have filed his revision before the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Gorakhpur which has not been done and the revision has been wrongly preferred before the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Maharajganj. In such a situation, the writ petition is consigned to records with liberty to the petitioner to appraoch the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Gorakhpur.

——————