JUDGMENT Lakshmi Prasad, J. - This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. 2. The petitioner preferred an objection under Section 9 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, which was dismissed by the Consolidation Officer. He then preferred an appeal which was dismissed on June 9, 1965 by the Settlement Officer Consolidation. According to the petitioner, the provisions of the amended Act applied, hence he preferred a revision from the order dated June 9, 1965 before the District Deputy Director. The petitioner maintains that even though no order of transfer as required by rule 65(1-A) of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Rules was passed, that revision came to be dismissed by an order dated September 2, 1965 by the Deputy Director Sri H.G. Debral. Subsequent to the dismissal of his revision the petitioner moved an application before the District Deputy Director on November 29, 1965, a copy of which is annexure 6 to the petition. In this application, it set forth provisions of law as he interpreted them and wanted that the entire thing be reopened right from the issue of C.H Form-5 in so far as rules came into force long after the issue of that form. It is further prayed in that application that because of the absence of any proper order of transfer the revision preferred by him be treated as still pending and be disposed of according to law. The allegation of the petitioner is that notwithstanding his repeated requests, the District Deputy Director has failed to dispose of his aforesaid application. Accordingly, the prayer in the petition is that the District Deputy Director, opposite party No. 1 be ordered by a writ of mandamus to dispose of his aforesaid application. 3. I have not made any mention of other facts stated in the petition because they relate to other reliefs in respect of which the petition has been dismissed summarily on the ground of undue laches on the part of the petitioner in seeking those reliefs. 4. It is only opposite party No. 7 who contested the objection of the petitioner, appears to oppose the petition. No counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of opposite party No. 1 to controvert the allegation that the application annexure 6 stand undisposed of despite repeated request of the petitioner withe the result that it is still pending with the District Deputy Director. 5. No counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of opposite party No. 1 to controvert the allegation that the application annexure 6 stand undisposed of despite repeated request of the petitioner withe the result that it is still pending with the District Deputy Director. 5. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for opposite party No. 7. Learned counsel for the opposite party No. 7 maintains that in so far as no case is pending before the District deputy director, the application is not at all competent. Even assuming it is so, it does not mean that the District Deputy Director is at liberty not to pass any order on it. If what he says is correct, the District Deputy Director has to reject it and that itself would be an order disposing of the application. Having regard to the facts of the case, I am of opinion that direction has to issue to opposite party No. 1 requiring him to dispose of the application. 6. In the end the petition is allowed so far as the first reliefs is concerned and the District Deputy Director is ordered to dispose of the application annexure 6 according to law. Parties are directed to bear their costs.