ORDER M.H. Beg, J. - The Petitioners have applied for quashing the order passed by the Settlement Officer (Consolidation) u/s 11(1) of the UP Consolidation of Holdings Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) on 2-8-63 as well as the order passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation rejecting two revision applications of the Petitioners u/s 48 of the Act on 3-3-1965. 2. It appeals that the basic entries were in favour of the Petitioners but an objection was filed by Smt. Shyama Kumari, opposite party No. 4, that her name had been wrongly left out from Khatas Nos. 337 and 290. It is not clear whether two cases were registered because the two khatas were different or whether they were so registered because Smt. Shyama Kumari had filed an objection and thereafter, the Petitioners had filed a written statement. According to the learned Counsel for the Petitioners the cases were registered separately and numbered as 1470 and 2525 before the Consolidation Officer simply because an objection as well as the written statement were filed. If the latter be the reason for registering the cases separately, it was erroneous. The cases could be registered separately if the Khatas were different. Nevertheless, the khatas related to the same village. The entries were common. The dispute was also based on common facts. The cases were therefore, obviously consolidated. Although the Consolidation Officer in passing a single order relating to both the Khatas had started by observing that there-were two cases before him he had ended up as follows:-- "It is, therefore ordered that name of Smt. Shyama Kumari w/o Raghubir Tiwari be recorded on Khata No. 337 and 290 along with present recorded tenure." Thus, the order was one which related to the two khatas. 3. The Petitioners filed an appeal, u/s 11(1) of the Act, against the order dated 4-2-1963 of Consolidation Officer, Ballia, but they mentioned only case No. 2575 in the grounds of appeal (Annexure 'C' to the petition). Nevertheless, the grounds show that the Petitioners had challenged the common grounds of decision with regard to both the khatas. The prayer shows that the setting aside of the order of the Consolidation Officer as a whole was prayed for. Section 11(1) of the Act gives a right, to the party aggrieved by the order, to file an appeal within twenty days of the date of that order. The prayer shows that the setting aside of the order of the Consolidation Officer as a whole was prayed for. Section 11(1) of the Act gives a right, to the party aggrieved by the order, to file an appeal within twenty days of the date of that order. There is no provision for filing separate appeals against the common order relating to two Khatas when the cases have been consolidated. Technical rules contained in the Code of Civil Procedure, applicable to separate suits, were certainly not applicable to consolidated proceedings of this kind. No rule could be shown to me in support of the proposition that two separate appeals should have been filed against a common order. In fact if there had been any such rule, it would have been contrary to the terms of Section 11(1) of the Act. Therefore, a single appeal was competent in the court of the Settlement Officer. The Settlement Officer dismissed the appeal on the ground that two appeals should have been filed and that a single appeal was barred by resjudicata inasmuch as the questions sought to be agitated by it were concluded by the decisions in the other case. 4. The Petitioners appear to have filed two revision applications before the Deputy Director of Consolidation who certainly had the power to interfere if there was an illegality or impropriety in the order of the Settlement Officer. But, the Deputy Director of Consolidation also upheld the grounds on which the Settlement Officer had rejected the Petitioner's appeal. Consequently, the Petitioners have preferred two writ petitions in this Court. No rule could be shown to me in support of the proposition that two appeals should have been filed in such cases. All that was urged was that the Petitioners had themselves accepted the correctness of the position adopted by the Settlement Officer in as much as they had filed two revision applications and then two writ petitions in this Court. I do not think that this is enough to deny the Petitioners the benefit of the right of appeal conferred upon them by Section 11(1) of the Act against any order passed under it. If that order was passed, whether rightly or wrongly, with respect to two khatas, the appeal, being against the order, as a whole, was also directed against the decision with regard to both khatas. If that order was passed, whether rightly or wrongly, with respect to two khatas, the appeal, being against the order, as a whole, was also directed against the decision with regard to both khatas. The principle of res judicate had no application here. 5. It was contended on behalf of the contesting opposite parties that the Petitioners themselves confined their appeal to one khata. After having gone through the grounds of appeal (Annexure 'C' to the petition), I think that this submission is incorrect. The Petitioners had merely mentioned one case, but they had challenged the whole order which related to both khatas. Therefore, it could not be said that the Petitioners had given up their claim to one Khata and had only challenged the decision with regard to the other. The most that could be said was that the Petitioners had made a mistake in mentioning only one out of two consolidated cases in the grounds of appeal. So long as the order is one, not more than one appeal need be filed. In the instant case, the record was also one. The evidence was common. The questions decided were common. Therefore, the order of the Settlement Officer was clearly erroneous. It amounted to a clear deprivation of the right of appeal conferred by Section 11(1) of the Act on the Petitioners. 6. Consequently, I allow both these writ petitions and quash the order of the Deputy Director of Consolidation passed on 3-3-1965 and the order of the Settlement Officer passed on 2-8-1963. The appeal will now be deemed to be pending and will be decided by the Settlement Officer (Consolidation) in accordance with law on the assumption that it relates to both the khatas. The decision must be given on merits. As the rights of the parties have not been finally adjudicated upon, I make no orders the costs.