JUDGMENT R.H. Zaidi, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners.
2. By means of this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioners pray for Issuance of a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated 26.11.1991 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation allowing the revision filed by the respondent No. 2 under Section 48 of the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, for short "the Act".
3. The relevant facts of the case giving rise to the present petition, in brief, are that the respondent No. 2, Jagdamba filed an objection under Section 9A of the Act claiming bhumidhari rights in the land comprising in Plot No. 261 measuring 1 bigha 6 biswas. The Consolidation Officer allowed his objection vide order dated 26.4.1977. The petitioners thereafter challenged the validity of the said order and filed an appeal before the Settlement Officer, Consolidation. The Settlement Officer, Consolidation allowed the appeal by his judgment and order dated 23.8.1988. The respondent No. 2 thereafter filed a revision under Section 48 of the Act before the Deputy Director of Consolidation. The Deputy Director of Consolidation has allowed the revision by the impugned order dated 26.11.1991, hence the present petition.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners vehemently urged that the order passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation is illegal and, therefore, is liable to be set aside.
5. On the other hand, learned standing counsel supported the validity of the impugned order. It was submitted that the view taken by the Deputy Director of Consolidation is legally correct. The petitioners were not party to the proceedings, therefore, they had no right to file the appeal. The Deputy Director of Consolidation did not commit any error of law in allowing the revision and setting aside the order passed by the Settlement Officer, Consolidation.
6. 1 have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and also perused the record.
7. It is not disputed that the Consolidation Officer decided the case in favour of respondent No. 2 and it is also apparent that the appeal was filed by the petitioner Nos. 2 to 11, in which the Gaon Sabha was not the party. The petitioner Nos. 2 to 11 were admittedly not party to the proceedings nor they were authorised by the Gaon Sabha to file the appeal. Section 11 of the Act under which the appeal was filed, provides as under :
(Only relevant quoted) "11, Appeals,--(1) Any party to the proceedings under Section 9A, aggrieved by an order of the Assistant Consolidation Officer or the Consolidation Officer under that section, may within 21 days of the order, file an appeal before the Settlement Officer, Consolidation, who shall after affording opportunity of being heard to the parties concerned, give his decision thereon which, except as otherwise provided by or under this Act, shall be final and not be questioned in any court of law."
8. A reading of the aforesaid statutory provision reveals that an appeal can be filed only by a party to the proceedings. It is well-settled in law that right of appeal, revision or review are the statutory rights. They are conferred by the statutes and unless conferred, they cannot be availed by any person and no authority can entertain an appeal, revision or review unless the said authority is authorized by the statute to entertain the same. The Deputy Director of Consolidation was, thus, right in holding that the aforesaid petitioners were not the party to the proceedings and they had no right to file an appeal. The appeal filed by them was legally not maintainable. He was, thus, justified in allowing the revision and setting aside the order passed by the Settlement Officer. Consolidation. I do not find any illegality or infirmity in the impugned order passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation.
9. The writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed but without any order as to costs.