JUDGMENT Satish Chandra, J. - The dispute relates to plot No. 1670/2. In the basic year this plot was recorded in the name of Sanman Singh. Several persons filed objections. The Consolidation Officer rejected the various objections and, on the finding that Sanman Singh was a tenant of the land in possession, held that his name should continue. Aggrieved, Ramdhari Singh filed an appeal. The Asstt. SO (C) held that the entry of the name of Sanman Singh was fictitious. There was no evidence that the plot was ever cultivated. The GO was not justified in allowing the name of Sanman Singh over plot No. 1670/2 though he was justified in rejecting the claim of Ramdhari Singh. On these findings the appeal was partly allowed and it was directed that the name of Sanman Singh will be expunged from plot No. 1670/2 and that the plot will continue in the name of the Gaon Sabha. Thereafter Sanman Singh and Ramdhari Singh filed revisions. The Dy. Director went into the merits of the case and after elaborately discussing the evidence, agreed with the finding of the SO (C). He accordingly dismissed the revisions. 2. Sanman Singh thereupon filed a writ petition in this Court. A learned single Judge held that the Gaon Sabha did not file an appeal against the order of the Consolidation Officer. That order became final as against it. Thereafter the Dy. Director had no suo motu power to interfere with that order. On this view, the orders of the Dy. Director as well as the Asstt. SO (C) in regard to plot No. 1670/2 were quashed, with the result that the order of the GO became operative in regard to this plot. Under that order the name of Sanman Singh was to be recorded because he was found to be the tenant of the plot in possession. 3. The Gaon Sabha has come up in appeal. The underlying fallacy in the line of reasoning that appealed to the learned single Judge is that the order of the CO became final. In our opinion, it did not became final in favour of or against any of the parties litigating before the CO. Ramdhari Singh and Sanman Singh had both filed appeals against the order of the CO. In these appeals the Gaon Sabha was made a party. In our opinion, it did not became final in favour of or against any of the parties litigating before the CO. Ramdhari Singh and Sanman Singh had both filed appeals against the order of the CO. In these appeals the Gaon Sabha was made a party. It cannot hence be said that the order of the CO had attained finality in respect of any of the parties to the dispute. While dealing with the appeals the SO (C) had full jurisdiction to go into the merits of the findings recorded by the CO. The finding of the CO that Sanman Singh was a tenant in possession was reversed on the merits. The claim of Ramdhari Singh was also rejected on the merits. Even though the Gaon Sabha had not filed an appeal in its own name, yet the SO (C) was bound to give effect to his own findings. The findings were that both the claimants had failed to prove their title. The necessary consequence of these findings was that the land had to be recognised as having vested in the State and in the Gaon Sabha. Giving recognition to this legal consequence was within the powers of the SO (C). His direction that the plot will be recorded in the name of the Gaon Sabha cannot be held to be illegal or without jurisdiction. 4. Ramdhari Singh and Sanman Singh had filed revisions. The Dy. Director was thereupon called upon to go into the merits of their claims. He agreed with the SO (C) on the merits. Similarly, on the merits he found that neither of these claimants had proved their title. He, therefore, dismissed the revisions. This is not, therefore, a case of suo motu exercise of power by the Dy. Director. He did not pass orders on his own. He only disposed of revisions filed by the parties on the merits. 5. This is not a case where the order of the CO may became final because nobody files an appeal within the prescribed period of limitation. The cases relied upon by the learned Counsel for the Respondent are not applicable to a situation where appeals have been filed within limitation against orders of the GO so that it cannot possibly be said that the order has become final and cannot be disturbed. 6. The cases relied upon by the learned Counsel for the Respondent are not applicable to a situation where appeals have been filed within limitation against orders of the GO so that it cannot possibly be said that the order has become final and cannot be disturbed. 6. The anomaly in the order of the learned single Judge is that though the finding of fact is that Sanman Singh had no title, yet the ultimate effect of the judgment under appeal is that his name will continue to be recorded. 7. In the result, the appeal succeeds and is allowed. The judgment of the learned single Judge is set aside and the writ petition is dismissed. We, however, make no order as to costs.