ORDER K.N. Misra, J. - Heard learned counsel for the petitioners at length and perused the impugned order passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation dated 27th Sept., 1982. The Settlement Officer (Consolidation) vide order dated 20th Mar., 1982 had stayed the hearing of the appeal on merits on the ground that a second appeal is pending in the High Court in respect of non- agricultural property and the judgment in the second appeal should be awaited which according to him would be decisive in the matter. Aggrieved by that order opposite party No. 3 filed a revision which has been allowed by order dated 27th Sept., 1982 by the Deputy Director of Consolidation who has set aside aforesaid order. He has also made certain observations with regard to the merits of the matter in paragraphs Nos. 5 and 6 of the judgment, but by the ultimate order the Deputy Director of Consolidation has set aside the order dated 20th Mar., 1982 by which hearing of the appeal was ordered to be stayed and has directed the appeal to be disposed of on merits. 2. The sole question for consideration in the present case is whether during the pendency of a civil suit or appeal arising therefrom in which common questions of fact and law are involved as are involved in the case pending before the Consolidation Authorities the latter proceedings are to be stayed or not. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the Settlement Officer (Consolidation) had rightly stayed the hearing in appeal on merits awaiting decision in the second appeal He further contended that the Deputy Director of Consolidation erred in setting aside that order and directing hearing of the appeal on merits. 4. I am unable to agree with this contention. The sole question for consideration in the present case is whether Consolidation Authorities are bound to stay proceedings before them if the same question is for consideration before the revenue or civil court. 4. I am unable to agree with this contention. The sole question for consideration in the present case is whether Consolidation Authorities are bound to stay proceedings before them if the same question is for consideration before the revenue or civil court. In support of this contention learned counsel for the petitioners had placed reliance upon a decision in Smt. Long Shri Devi v. Rajendra Singh, 1978 Rev Dec 133: (AIR 1978 NOC 91) (All), wherein it has been held that the proper course in a matter like the above would be for the consolidation court to stay proceedings under S. 151 of the Civil P. C. and to wait for the decision of the civil or revenue court. This decision of the learned single Judge was considered by the Division Bench in Ram Chandra Dubey v. D.D.C. Civil Misc. Writ No. 7490 of 1981, decided on 23-11-1982, wherein the Division Bench held that : "After 'a review of the relevant provisions of the Consolidation of Holdings Act, we are of opinion that proceedings pending before the Consolidation Authorities cannot be stayed to enable the parties to get judgment from a Civil Court. The power of Civil Court and the Consolidation Courts in a matter which fall within the cognisance of both the parties is same and similar. Section 151 of the Civil P. C. does not authorise the court to invest its jurisdiction where it has not been conferred by law. We are, therefore, of the view that Smt. Long Shri Devi v. Rajendra Singh does not lay down the correct law." It was further held that : "The proceedings contemplated by this Act are to be expeditiously decided to achieve the purpose of providing for the consolidation of agricultural holding. We, therefore, are required to make such interpretation of the provisions of Consolidation of Holdings Act as does not defeat the very object and purpose of the Act. To hold that the consolidation proceedings would be held up till the civil suit finally determines the right of the party would be nullifying the purpose for which the Act was enacted." 5. Similar question cropped up for consideration before me in Mithan Singh v. Chandra Pal Singh, 1982 All LJ 1445, wherein I had observed that the consolidation proceedings cannot be stayed during the pendency of the civil suit. Similar question cropped up for consideration before me in Mithan Singh v. Chandra Pal Singh, 1982 All LJ 1445, wherein I had observed that the consolidation proceedings cannot be stayed during the pendency of the civil suit. Similar view was taken by me in Daya Shanker v. D.D.C. Civil Misc. Writ No. 1928 of 1980 decided on 18-4-1983. 6. In this view of the matter I do not find any error has been committed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation in directing the appeal to be heard on merits. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioners however, urged that while remanding the case to the Settlement Officer (Consolidation) with direction to hear the appeal on merits, the Deputy Director of Consolidation should not have made observations on the merits of the matter. I find some substance in this contention. The Settlement- Officer (Consolidation) has not yet disposed of the appeal on merits and as such no observation should have been made on merits of the matter by the Deputy Director of Consolidation, who was only required to consider whether the order staying the hearing of the appeal should or should not be maintained. The Settlement Officer (Consolidation) would, therefore, now decide the appeal on merits without being influenced by the observations made by the Deputy Director of Consolidation about the merits of the matter. 8. With these observations the writ petition is disposed of and be consigned to records.