JUDGMENT B.N. Nigam, J. - Desh Raj Singh and another (Desh Raj Singh having been succeeded by his legal representatives) In the circumstances the file should have filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution praying for a writ of certiorari quashing the order dated August 14, 1964, copy being annexure 3. They have also prayed for a writ of prohibition restraining opposite party No. 2, Consolidation Officer Record Operations, Hardoi, from proceeding with the remanded case. 2. In the petition I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. 3. As stated in the order of the Deputy Director, Consolidation, copy annexure 3, Subedar Singh and others were recorded as tenants of the plot in dispute. Desh Raj Singh and others filed objections on June 12, 1962 claiming entry of their names. Before the decision of this objection, Srimati Prakash Kumari filed an objection on October 21, 1963 praying that she be impleaded as a party. This application was rejected. The Consolidation Officer, however, accepted the claim of Desh Raj Singh. Thereupon, Shrimati Prakash Kumari filed two appeals against the two orders. The appeals were dismissed and she thereupon filed two revision applications. 4. In the writ petition the learned Counsel for the petitioners is not concerned with the order on Srimati Prakash Kumari's application for being impleaded as a party. The main objection as regards the revision application is that it was not correctly instituted. In paragraph 2 of the supplementary affidavit, it is stated that the revision application was not filed before the District Deputy Director, Consolidation, nor did the District Deputy Director, Consolidation, entertain the same. It is stated that Shri Ansari, Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Sandila, who was not the Collector of the district, entertained the petition. The learned Junior Standing Counsel was given time in the month of May and again in the month of July to give information on this point. No information has been furnished by him. No counter-affidavit contradicting the statement in this supplementary affidavit has been filed. In the circumstances, I hold that the revision application was not properly instituted and the order annexure 3 is without jurisdiction. 5. No information has been furnished by him. No counter-affidavit contradicting the statement in this supplementary affidavit has been filed. In the circumstances, I hold that the revision application was not properly instituted and the order annexure 3 is without jurisdiction. 5. I, therefore, quash the order of the Deputy Director, Consolidation, dated August 14, 1964, copy annexure 3, and direct the issue of a direction of the Consolidation Officer Record Operations, Hardoi, not to proceed with the proceedings consequent on the order dated August 14, 1964. The petition is allowed in terms above. There will be no order as to costs.