JUDGMENT V. Bhargava, J. - This special appeal is directed against the judgment of a learned Single Judge of this Court dismissing a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution by which the appellant had sought the issue of a writ of certiorari to quash the order of the Settlement Officer (Consolidation) dated the 27th June, 1958 dismissing an appeal under Sec. 21 of the Consolidation of Holdings Act on the ground that no action could be taken because the notification under Sec. 52 of the Act had already been issued by the U.P. Government and published in the U P. Gazette dated 21st June, 1958. The learned Single Judge agreed with the view of the Settlement officer (Consolidation) that no order in that appeal could be made by the latter which would have the effect of making any alteration in the consolidation records after the notification under Sec. 52 of the Consolidation of Holdings Act had been issued. 2. The learned counsel for the appellant -urged before us that in the petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, the appellant had challenged the validity of the notification issued under Sec. 52 of the Consolidation of Holdings Act, and that point should also have been decided by the learned Single Judge. It does appear that this point raised in the petition was not considered by the learned Single Judge. We have, however, heard learned counsel to examine whether this contention raised by the appellant has any force or not. The validity of the notification under Sec. 52 was challenged on the ground that on the date of the issue of that notification objections and appeals were still pending. The assertion that appeals and objections were pending was a very vague one. On such a vague assertion the petition could not be allowed. The only specific allegation related to the fact that an appeal which had been presented by the present appellant to the Settlement Officer (Consolidation) was still pending on 21st June, 1958 when the notification under Sec, 52 was issued, and we have to see whether this is a sufficient ground for holding that the notification was invalid. 3. The only specific allegation related to the fact that an appeal which had been presented by the present appellant to the Settlement Officer (Consolidation) was still pending on 21st June, 1958 when the notification under Sec, 52 was issued, and we have to see whether this is a sufficient ground for holding that the notification was invalid. 3. An examination of the provisions of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, as it was in force in the year 1958, shows that, in the consolidation proceedings, a stage is reached when parties have liberty to file objections under Sec. 20 of the Act. Those objections are to be decided under Sec. 21(1) by the Consolidation officer. Under Sec. 21(2) a right of appeal is granted, and the decision in appeal has been laid down to be final except as otherwise provided by or under the Act. Then Sec. 22 lays down the procedure to be followed in regard to certain objections which involve questions of title in or over land. Thereafter comes Sec. 23 under which the Settlement officer (Consolidation) is directed to confirm the statement of proposals if no objections are filed within the time specified in Sec, 20, or where such objections are filed, after such modifications and alterations as may be necessary in view of the orders passed under Sec. 21. This provision contained in Sec. 23(1) shows that the Settlement officer (Consolidation) is required to confirm the statement of proposals at a stage when either no objections under Sec. 20 have been filed or the objections have been decided under Sec. 21, and further if there be any appeals under Sec. 21, they have also been decided. This confirmation of the statement of proposals under sub-Sec. (2) of Sec. 23 has to be published and is to be final, except in so far as it relates to land which is the subject matter of references to the Civil Judge and which have not been disposed of till then. Thus the finality of the statement of proposals published is subject to only one modification, viz. modification necessitated by orders in references made under Sec. 22. In the present case, there is no suggestion that any references under Sec. 22 were pending when the statement of proposals was confirmed under Sec. 23. Thus the finality of the statement of proposals published is subject to only one modification, viz. modification necessitated by orders in references made under Sec. 22. In the present case, there is no suggestion that any references under Sec. 22 were pending when the statement of proposals was confirmed under Sec. 23. Consequently, the appellant could have succeeded only if he had shown that, on the date when the order of confirmation under Sec. 23 was made by the Settlement officer, any objections or appeals under Sec. 21 were still pending. So far as subsequent proceedings under Secs. 24 to 27 and under subsequent sections up to section 52 are concerned, proceedings under these sections can be taken on the basis of the statement of proposals finalised under Sec. 23, and unless there be any irregularity or illegality in those proceedings themselves, those proceedings would not be invalidated, on the ground of pendency of proceedings under Sec. 21, only the finality of the statement of proposals could be challenged and not those subsequent proceedings. 4. In the present case, reliance by the appellant is placed on the pendency of objections and appeals under Sec. 21. Pendency of these objections and appeals could, if at all, invalidate only the confirmation of the statement of proposals by the Settlement Officer (Consolidation) under Sec. 23. That would have happened provided it was shown that, on the date on which the confirmation of proposals was made, such objection or appeal was (SIC). No such assertion has (SIC) in this case. The asser (SIC) is that objections and appeals were pending on the date of the notification under Sec. 52 and it seems that that assertion is made only an the basis of the appellants appeal before the Settlement Officer (Consolidation) which was pending on 21st June, 1958. So far as that appeal is concerned, it seems that it came to be pending because the original objection filed by the appellant was once decided, the first appeal against that decision was decided and then there was a remand by the Deputy Director of Consolidation in a revision filed under Sec. 48. So far as that appeal is concerned, it seems that it came to be pending because the original objection filed by the appellant was once decided, the first appeal against that decision was decided and then there was a remand by the Deputy Director of Consolidation in a revision filed under Sec. 48. This being the position, it seems to be very likely that the statement of proposals was con-firmed by the Settlement Officer at a stage when the original objection of the appellant as well as the first appeal under Sec. 21 had been decided, and the revision before the Deputy Director was pending. Sec. 23 permitted confirmation of - the proposals even if a revision was pending. The precondition attached to that provision for making an order of confirmation merely was that all orders to be made tinder Sec. 21 had been made. In this case, while there is no definite assertion that an objection or appeal of this appellant or of any other person, was actually pending on the date when the order of confirmation of the statement of proposals was made by the Settlement Officer, we have to act on the presumption that the proceedings taken by him must have been taken in accordance with law, because under Sec. 114 of the Indian Evidence Act there is a presumption of regularity about official proceedings. In this light, we have to proceed on the basis that, on the date when the confirmation of the statement of proposals was made, there was no appeal or objection pending and that the proceedings that were pending must have been in the nature of revisions only. The pendency of these revisions could not affect the finality of the statement of proposals because Sec. 23 omits any mention of the pendency of revisions, though it specifically lays down the condition that the confirmation of the statement of proposals is to be final subject to orders that may be made in references made under Sec. 22 of the Act. If the intention had been that the confirmation of statement of proposals should also be subject to orders passed in revisions under Sec. 48, there was no difficulty in laying down a specific provision to that effect, as has been laid down with respect to references made to the Civil Judge. If the intention had been that the confirmation of statement of proposals should also be subject to orders passed in revisions under Sec. 48, there was no difficulty in laying down a specific provision to that effect, as has been laid down with respect to references made to the Civil Judge. Absence of such a provision means that the Legislature never intended that orders made in revisions should invalidate the confirmation of statement of proposals, provided that the order of confirmation was made at a date when no appeal or objection under Sec. 21 was pending. The present being a case, as we have said earlier, where the appellant has failed to show that any objection or appeal was actually pending on the date when the statement of proposals was confirmed, that confirmation order became final and was valid, and all subsequent proceedings, including the notification under Sec. 52, must also be held to be valid. 5. There is no force in this appeal and it is dismissed with costs.