JUDGMENT :

Rajiv Joshi, J.

1. Heard Sri Satish Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner.

2. The present writ petition has been filed challenging the order dated 18.4.2019 passed by the Settlement Officer Consolidation Varanasi in Appeals Nos. 98/530/2500+Appeal Nos. 999/531/2501 (Chandrama Prasad v. State) filed under Rule 109 -A (3) of the U.P. Consolidation of Holding Rules 1954 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Rules') whereby the appeals were dismissed affirming the order dated 15.7.2000 in Case no. 61 filed under Rule 109-A of the Rules.

3. The brief facts involved in the present writ petition are thus; the application under Rule 109-A was filed by Smt. Chamela Devi for implementation of the order dated 12.6.2000 passed by the Settlement Officer Consolidation in Appeal No. 669 filed under Section 11 (1) of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act').; The application filed by the ancestors of the contesting respondents was allowed vide order dated 15.7.2000 whereby the name of the respondents were directed to be mutated in the revenue record pursuant to the order dated 15.6.2000. Against that order, two appeals were filed by the petitioners on 18.7.2000 under Rule 109 (3) of the Rules. The appeal filed by the petitioners were dismissed vide impugned order dated 18.4.2019 affirming the order passed by the Consolidation Officer dated 15.7.2000. Against the order of Settlement Officer Consolidation, the present writ petition has been filed.

4. Contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that sub-rule 3 of Rule 109-A of the Rules, the order passed by the Settlement Officer Consolidation is final and therefore, the present writ petition is maintainable.

5. On the other hand, learned Standing counsel raised an objection that the petitioner had an alternative remedy to challenge the impugned order by way of revision under Section 48(1) of the Act and the writ petition is liable to be dismissed on the ground of alternative remedy available to the petitioner.

6. I have considered the submission so raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record.

7. The question is whether against the order passed by the Settlement Officer Consolidation dismissing the appeal under sub-rule 3 of Rule 109-A of the Rules, the writ petition is maintainable or the petitioner had an alternative remedy to file the revision under Section 48 (1) of the Act.

8. For considering the said aspect of the matter, it is relevant to have a look upon sub-rule 3 of Rule 109-A of the Rules and Section 48 of the Act which read thus:

Sub-rule (3) of Rule 109-A of the U.P. C.H. Rules 1954:

"(3) Any person aggrieved by the order of the Consolidation Officer, or the Tahsildar, as the case may be, may, within 15 days of the order passed under sub-rule (2), file an appeal before the Settlement Officer, Consolidation, or the Assistant Collector incharge of the sub-division, as the case may be, who shall decide the appeal after affording reasonable opportunity of being heard to the parties concerned, which shall be final."

Section 48 of the U.P. C.H. Act 1953:

"The Director of Consolidation may call for and examine the record of any case decided or proceedings taken by any subordinate authority for the purpose of satisfying himself as to the regularity of the proceedings; or as to the correctness, legality or propriety of any order] [other than an interlocutory order] passed by such authority in the case or proceedings, may, after allowing the parties concerned an opportunity of being heard, make such order in the case or proceedings as he thinks fit."

9. Now the question is whether the order passed by appellate authority in the Rule under sub-rule 3 of Rule 109-A of the Rules attained finality or the revision would be maintainable under Section 48 (1) of the Act. It is well settled proposition of law that the rules cannot supersede the power given in the Act to the Deputy Director of Consolidation to examine the