JUDGMENT 1. We have heard learned counsel for the petitioners on this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution by which the petitioners challenge the order of the Consolidation Officer, the appellate order of the Assistant Settlement Officer (Consolidation) and the revisional order of the Deputy Director of Consolidation in proceedings arising out of an objection under Section 9 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act. Two points have been urged before us by learned counsel. 2. The first point urged was that the Assistant Settlement Officer (Consolidation) and the Deputy Director of Consolidation, who heard the appeal and the revision were not competent to hear them and to give decision in them. The ground is that neither of them was properly appointed or conferred the power which would entitle them to decide the appeal or the revision. 3. So far as the Assistant Settlement Officer (Consolidation) Sri V.P. Singh is concerned, there appears to be prima facie some force in the objection raised on behalf of the petitioners. According to the affidavit filed on behalf of the petitioner, Sri V.P. Singh, was appointed as an Assistant Settlement Officer (Consolidation) by a notification issued by Sri I.D.N. Sahi, Commissioner of Consolidation. The notification stated that the Commissioner of Consolidation, Sri I.D.N. Sahi, was appointing Sri V.P.Singh as Assistant Settlement Officer (Consolidation) in exercise of the power conferred by Sub-section (1) of Section 42 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953. Under sub-section (1) of Section 42 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act the power is to be exercised by the State Government. The notification mentioned that Sri I.D.N. Sahi was exercising those powers as they had been delegated to him by a Government order dated March 12, 1962. This delegation of power to Sri I.D.N. Sahi could only be under Section 44 of the Act and it was urged that such delegation could only be valid if it was made by a notification in the official gazette as required by that section, while the G.O. dated March 12, 1962 was not published in the official gazette and was never a part of any notification. If the facts given on behalf of the petitioners are true, Sri I.D.N. Sahi was not competent to exercise the powers of the State Government purported to be delegated to him under Government Order dated March 12, 1962, and notification appointing Sri V.P. Singh as Assistant Settlement Officer (Consolidation) was ineffective. Since we do not have before us the version of the opposite party at this stage, we have to see whether, on the assumption that Sri V.P. Singh was not properly appointed as Assistant Settlement Officer (Consolidation), this writ petition should be entertained. It appears to us that this is a ground which does not require interference by this Court. In this case, the original and main order which is effective was made by Consolidation Officer and there is no suggestion that the Consolidation Officer's order in any way suffers from lack of jurisdiction. The order which is said to be without jurisdiction is that made by the Assistant Settlement Officer (Consolidation) in appeal. But subsequently there was another order passed in revision by the Deputy Director of Consolidation exercising powers of a Director under Section 48 of the Act. The validity of that order is also challenged; but, if we hold that order was validly passed by an officer duly authorised, then the validity of the order of the Assistant Settlement Officer (Consolidation) would be quite immaterial. The original order having been made by a valid authority and having been finally upheld by a valid order of another superior authority, the invalidity of an intermediate order would not at all be material. There is the further circumstance that no objection to the jurisdiction of Sri V.P. Singh to function as Assistant Settlement Officer was raised either before him or subsequently before the Deputy Director of Consolidation, in the revision under Section 48, with the result that the petitioner sought decision of their disputes on merits from Sri V.P. Singh and have raised this point only because the case on merits has gone against them. In these circumstances, we do not think that the petition need be entertained even if it is held that the appointment of Sri V.P. Singh as Assistant Settlement Officer (Consolidation) was not validly made. 4. In these circumstances, we do not think that the petition need be entertained even if it is held that the appointment of Sri V.P. Singh as Assistant Settlement Officer (Consolidation) was not validly made. 4. So far as the appointment of Sri B.D. Maheshwari, the Deputy Director of Consolidation who heard the revision under Section 48 of the Act is concerned, at the time of the hearing of the revision no objection was raised to his jurisdiction and the petitioners sought a decision on merits from him. Further, it appears to us that there was no invalidity in his appointment. The supplementary affidavit filed by the petitioner, itself shows that the State Govt, issued a notification on February 3, 1962 by which Sri B.D. Maheshwari was transferred to Lucknow and with effect from the date of taking over charge was appointed as the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Uttar Pradesh with headquarters at Lucknow vice another officer, who had retired. This appointment of Sri B.D. Maheshwari was clearly in accordance with Section 42 of the Act. He was appointed as the Deputy Director of Consolidation and the area for which he was appointed was mentioned as Uttar Pradesh, so that he was appointed as a Deputy Director of Consolidation for the whole of the State of Uttar Pradesh. His headquarters was to be at Lucknow. This notification fully complied with the requirements of Section 42 and was a valid appointment. We have also to notice another notification issued by the State Government on April 16, 1963 by which the Govt, of Uttar Pradesh was pleased to confer on all Deputy Directors of Consolidation the powers of Director of Consolidation as laid down in Section 48 of the Act. This notification had the effect of conferring on Sri B.D. Maheshwari the power of Director of Consolidation under Section 48 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act and, consequently, he was competent to hear the revision. He actually heard the revision of the petitioner and gave a decision on merits. His revisional powers could have been exercised against the order of Consolidation Officer direct ignoring the Assistant Settlement Officer (Consolidation) or even after an appeal to the Settlement Officer (Consolidation) had been decided. He actually heard the revision of the petitioner and gave a decision on merits. His revisional powers could have been exercised against the order of Consolidation Officer direct ignoring the Assistant Settlement Officer (Consolidation) or even after an appeal to the Settlement Officer (Consolidation) had been decided. Since he confirmed the original order made by the Consolidation Officer by a valid order, his order remains effective and is not in any way vitiated by the mere circumstance relied upon by the petitioners that the Assistant Settlement Officer (Consolidation) who heard the appeal and decided it was not competent to do so. 5. The second point urged by learned counsel was that the Deputy Director of Consolidation has given a wrong decision that Smt. Gopi was one of the co-tenure holders of the land in dispute. This decision is based on two decrees passed in two earlier suits between the same parties. The first suit was filed by Smt. Gopi under Section 49 of the U.P. Tenancy Act. It was decreed on October 28, 1953 by the trial court and the decree was upheld upto the Board of Revenue. A civil suit was filed by the petitioners for cancellation of that decree but that suit was dismissed and a second appeal is pending in this Court. The other decree was in a suit under Section 209 of the U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act filed by Smt. Gopi which suit was decreed on March 26, 1963, and the decree was upheld in appeal. The decree in these two suits have become final and have been rightly held to operate as res judicata against the petitioners. There is thus no error of law apparent on the face of the order of the Deputy Director of Consolidation. 6. There is no substance in either of the contentions raised by the petitioners. The writ petition is dismissed.