JUDGMENT S.N. Srivastava, J.
1. This writ petition is directed against the order dated 21.12.2005, passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Gorakhpur allowing the application to withdraw revision to avail alternative remedy of appeal.
2. The facts of the case are that against an order passed by the Consolidation Officer, Opposite Party No. 2 preferred a revision. Subsequently he was advised to file an appeal. Opp. Party No. 2 then filed an appeal before the Appellate authority and also moved an application before the Deputy Director of Consolidation to permit to withdraw the revision to persue his remedy in Appeal which was allowed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation. This order is impugned in the present writ petition.
3. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioners and learned Standing Counsel.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners urged that there was no provision under the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act under which Deputy Director of Consolidation could grant such permission to withdraw revision in order to persue alternative remedy of appeal, hence the order passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation was without jurisdiction and is liable to be quashed. In support of his arguments, learned Counsel for the petitioners urged that by virtue of Section 41 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, the provisions of Chapters IX and X of the U.P. Land Revenue Act are applicable, even though the provisions Chapters of the U.P. Land Revenue Act do not mention any such power to the Deputy Director of Consolidation to allow an application to grant permission to withdraw revision. Learned counsel for the petitioners further urged that as C.P.C. is not applicable to the proceedings under U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, provisions of Order 23 Rule 1 of the C.P.C. applicable to the Civil Courts to grant permission to withdraw the suit is not available to the Consolidation authorities. He prayed for quashing the order passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation and remanding the matter to the Deputy Director of Consolidation to decide the revision on merits.
5. Considered arguments of learned Counsel for the petitioners and perused the record as well as relevant provisions on the point.
6. In the present case, this is not disputed that only appeal was maintainable, but an incompetent revision was preferred. As soon as the mistake was detected, an appeal was preferred and an application was moved to the Deputy Director of Consolidation to grant permission to withdraw the revision which was allowed by the impugned order.
7. Rule 111 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Rules, 1954 provides for presenting the application for revision which reads as under:-
An application under Section 48 of the Act shall be presented by applicant or his duly authorised agent to the Joint/Deputy/Assistant Director of Consolidation, nominated by the Director of Consolidation, Uttar Pradesh for the District or Settlement Officer (Consolidation) unit concerned or failing posting of any such Joint/Deputy/Assistant Director of Consolidation in the district, to the District Deputy Director (Consolidation within 30 days of the order against which the application is directed. It shall be accompanied by copy of the judgment or order in respect of which the application is preferred. Copies of judgment or order, if any, of other subordinate authorities in respect of dispute shall be filed alongwith the application.
8. Though Order 23 Rule 1 of the C.P.C. is not applicable to the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, but Consolidation authorities can exercise discretion to secure end of justice in the case and as revision was not competent, the Deputy Director of Consolidation rightly permitted to withdraw the same. An Authority having no jurisdiction to entertain the revision has no jurisdiction to decide the revision on merit. The order was rightly passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation permitting to withdraw the revision.
9. Thus, it is clear that if an authority has power to entertain any revision, it has also power to permit withdrawal of the revision.
10. The Deputy Director of Consolidation has permitted to withdraw the revision in the facts of the case. There is no error of law apparent on the face of record.
11. For the reasons, as above, writ petition has no force and is dismissed.