JUDGMENT R.M. Sahai, J. - The only controversy in this petition directed against orders dated 24-11-69 and 5-7-72 passed by Deputy Director of Consolidation is whether appeal against order of Settlement Officer Consolidation directing filing of criminal complaint against Petitioner for having forged valuable document was maintainable before Deputy Director of Consolidation or not. 2. On 29-4-67 Settlement Officer Consolidation held that Petitioner was guilty of committing fraud upon the court by presenting application u/s 42A of Consolidation Act on false, wrong and baseless grounds and by filing forged and fraudulent compromise in these cases, He, accordingly directed a complaint to be filed against them in a competent court. Against this order Petitioners filed appeal before Deputy Director of Consolidation which was dismissed on 24-11-69. The Deputy Director held that appeal had been filed u/s 476B of Code of Criminal Procedure. But under that provision no appeal lay unless complaint was filed. And as there was nothing to show that complaint had been filed the appeal against direction of filing complaint was pre-mature. Another effort by way of review also failed on 5-7-72. 3. So far the order dated 24-11-69 is concerned it is contrary to a Full Bench decision of this Court in Chhajoo v. Radhey Shyam 1968 AWR 249 (L. B.)(F. B.) The Full Bench on an interpretation of Section 476-B Code of Criminal Procedure (as it then stood) held that an appeal even against an order directing filing of complaint was maintainable. 4. Learned Counsel for opposite party attempted to defend the order on a ground on which even the Deputy Director of Consolidation had not rejected the appeal. He urged that under Consolidation of Holdings Act the Deputy Director did not enjoy any appellate power therefore no appeal lay against order of Settlement Officer Consolidation and the Deputy Director did not commit any manifest error of law in dismissing the appeal as not maintainable. The argument is not only devoid of any merit but misconceived. An appeal against an order directing filing of complaint u/s 476 Code of Criminal Procedure was provided by Section 476-B Code of Criminal Procedure and not by Consolidation Act. It permitted a person against whom direction of filing of complaint was issued to file an appeal before a superior or higher court, as the case be against order passed by civil, revenue or criminal court. It permitted a person against whom direction of filing of complaint was issued to file an appeal before a superior or higher court, as the case be against order passed by civil, revenue or criminal court. It is not disputed that Deputy Director of Consolidation is covered in the expression 'revenue court'. There-fore he being superior authority of the Settlement Officer Consolidation under Consolidation Act an appeal against the order directing filing of complaint u/s 476 Code of Criminal Procedure was maintainable before him. Appeal lay by virtue of Section 476-B and not under Consolidation of Holdings Act. 5. The learned Counsel then urged that he has filed entire evidence along with counter affidavit. Therefore this Court may instead of directing Deputy Director to decide the appeal afresh, after ten years of filing of petition and thirteen years after the order was passed by Settlement Officer Consolidation, decide it and finish the agony of opposite parties. It is true that this petition has remained pending for too long but that does not empower this Court to decide the question of fact and convert itself into appellate authority under Article 226 of Constitution of India. 6. In the result this petition succeeds and the order dated 24-11-69 is quashed. As the basic order has been quashed the order dated 5-7-72 automatically falls. The Deputy Director shall now decide the appeal on merits in accordance with law at an early date. Parties shall bear their own costs.