JUDGMENT

Lakshmi Prasad, J. - This is a special appeal from the judgment dated January 23, 1964 of a learned single Judge of this Court dismissing the Appellant's writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

2. The allegation of the Appellant is that he along with the widow of his brother Fateh Singh, namely, Respondent No. 8 has been the owner in possession since long of groves Nos. 985 and 1070 measuring one bigha 11 biswas and two bighas seven biswas respectively situate in village Sithauli Kalan, Tahsil Mohanlalganj, District Lucknow. He further alleges that it was on 8th January, 1960 that C.H. Form 38 was served on him when he came to know about the incorrect entries made surreptitiously by the village Lekhpal in favour of Respondents Nos. 3 to 7. According to the said entries 15 biswas of grove in plot No. 985 stands recorded in the name of Respondent No. 3 whereas one bigha four biswas of the grove in plot No. 1070 stands recorded in the name of Respondents Nos. 4 to 7. The Appellant preferred an objection under Rule 80 of the Consolidation of Holdings Rules, 1954 on 11th January, 1960 subsequent to the service of C.H. Form 38 on him on 8th January, l960. The said objection of the Appellant was dismissed by the Settlement Officer Consolidation Respondent No 2 by his order dated 27th February, 1960. Aggrieved by that order the Appellant preferred a revision u/s 48 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act before the Deputy Director of Consolidation Respondent No. 1, but that too was dismissed on 17th September. 1960. The allegation of the Appellant is that the said consolidation authorities exceeded their jurisdiction in deciding the question of title which could not be done in the proceedings u/s 27 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act It is further alleged by the Appellant that Rule 80 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Rules which purports to confer jurisdiction on consolidation authorities to determine the question of title, is ultra vires in so far as it goes beyond the provisions of the Act itself. Accordingly, the prayer of the Appellant in the petition is for a writ of certiorari quashing Rule 80 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Rules and the aforesaid two orders of the consolidation authorities, with a further prayer that a writ of mandamus may issue forbidding the Respondents to act upon the aforesaid orders of Respondents Nos. 1 and 2.

3. The petition has been contested by the Respondents.

4. The learned single Judge before whom the petition came up for hearing dismissed it on the ground that the sole point raised before him that Rule 80 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Rules being against the principle of natural justice deserved to be struck down, was without any substance. Hence the Petitioner has come up in appeal.

5. We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties at some length. The Appellants counsel argued before us that the said Rule 80 deserved to be struck down, firstly, because the said rule and those preceding it beginning from Rule 74 having been interpreted by this Court in the case of Kumbha Karan v. S.C. Lal Sexena (1) (1961 A.W.R. 526) and in an unreported decision of this Court in Husain Abbas v. Brij Lal (2) (Spl. A. No 89 of 1962) as not conferring jurisdiction to decide questions of title, must be taken to have failed to achive the purpose with which they came to be framed having in view the provisions of Section 27 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act and secondly, because they are discriminatory in so far as they envisage a procedure quite different from that envisaged by Section 12 of the Act pertaining to the determination of questions of title in respect of holdings included in the consolidation scheme. The argument in this behalf is that in case of a dispute of bhumidhari rights in respect of a holding included in the consolidation scheme the procedure envisaged by the Act and the Rules framed thereunder for the determination of such dispute is