JUDGMENT N.D. Ojha, J. - The village where the land in dispute is situate was brought under consolidation operations and a Chak was allotted to the petitioner. The date and the year in which the order of allotment of Chak was made have not been stated in the writ petition. It appears that the petitioner subsequently made an application before the District Magistrate on November 11, 1968, with the prayer that he may be allotted some paddy yielding land also in his Chak out of the 'bachat' land of the Gaon Sabha. Even though the application made on November 11, 1968, was headed as an appeal under Section 21(2) of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, in paragraph 4 of the writ petition it has been stated by the petitioner himself that this was an application and not an appeal. The application seems to have been forwarded to the Settlement Officer (Consolidation) for passing final orders. The Settlement Officer (Consolidation) November 25, 1968 passed an order directing some land to be taken out from the 'bachat' land and allotted in the petitioner's Chak and land of corresponding valuation to be taken out of the petitioner's Chak. Against the order aforesaid a revision was filed on behalf of the Gaon Sabha before the Deputy Director of Consolidation. The Deputy Director of Consolidation allowed the revision and set aside the order of the Settlement Officer (Consolidation) by his order dated September 22, 1970 on the ground that Section 53 under which the Settlement Officer (Consolidation) purported to pass the order dated November 25, 1968 was not at all attracted to the facts of the instant case. Aggrieved, the petitioner has come to this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. 2. It was urged by learned counsel for the petitioner that the revision which was filed before the Deputy Director of Consolidation purporting to be on behalf of the Gaon Sabha was not maintainable inasmuch as it was presented by one Bhupat Lal who was just a member of the Gaon Sabha and had no authority to file any revision on behalf of the Gaon Sabha. I am not inclined to agree with thus submission. It is denied that the revision was not dismissed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation summarily on the ground that it had not been presented by a proper person on behalf of the Gaon Sabha. I am not inclined to agree with thus submission. It is denied that the revision was not dismissed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation summarily on the ground that it had not been presented by a proper person on behalf of the Gaon Sabha. The record was called for by the Deputy Director of Consolidation and final orders were passed on the date of final hearing. In these circumstances if the Deputy Director of Consolidation decided the revision on merits he cannot be said to have committed any manifest error of law: see Abdul Junaid v. Deputy Director of Consolidation, 1972 A.L.J. 435 (D.B.). and J.P. Ojha v. R.R. Tandon, A.I.R. 1962 All. 485. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner then urged that the Deputy Director of Consolidation had committed an error in taking the view that the provisions of Section 53 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act were not attracted to the facts of the instant case. In fact it was also submitted by him that the application as presented by the petitioner did not purport to be under Section 53. Suffice it to say in this behalf that, as already pointed out above, in paragraph 4 of the writ petition it has been admitted that what was presented by the petitioner on November 11, 1968, before the District Magistrate was an application and not an appeal. It is for the petitioner to point out under what provision the said application was made. Once an order was passed in proceedings for allotment of Chaks by a competent authority, it could be set aside only in the manner prescribed in the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, namely, either on an appeal or revision to a higher authority or on an application contemplated by the said Act. On the own showing of the petitioner he did not file any appeal but made an application only for making an alteration in the order already passed for allotment of Chaks. Since the order of the Settlement Officer (Consolidation) indicates that the application was treated as an application tinder Section 53 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act it can be presumed that it was pressed before him as an application under Section 53. The said section applies only to tenure-holders. Since the order of the Settlement Officer (Consolidation) indicates that the application was treated as an application tinder Section 53 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act it can be presumed that it was pressed before him as an application under Section 53. The said section applies only to tenure-holders. The Gaon Sabha is not a tenure-holder and consequently the Deputy Director of Consolidation cannot be said to have committed any manifest error in taking the view that the order which was passed by the Settlement Officer (Consolidation) cannot be justified under Section 53. Learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to point out any other provision of law under which an application in the nature of the application which was presented by the petitioner could be made before the District Magistrate. Consequently the order finally passed in proceedings for allotment of Chaks could not be set aside by the Settlement Officer (Consolidation) on a mere application which was not warranted by any provision of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act. The order of the Deputy Director of Consolidation does not suffer from any manifest error of law or error of jurisdiction. 4. In result, the writ petition fails and is dismissed with costs.