JUDGMENT B.L. Yadav, J. - The present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is directed against the order passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation dated May 12, 1977 dismissing the revision under Section 48 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act (for short the Act). 2. The facts of the case lie in a very narrow compass. The petitioner filed an objection under Section 12 of the Act claiming mutation on the basis of the registered sale-deed dated March 5, 1970 executed by respondent No. 5. Her application was rejected by the Consolidation Officer. An appeal was also filed against that order and the same was rejected and the appellate order was maintained in revision by the Deputy Director of Consolidation. It is against these orders that the present, petition has been filed. 3. I have heard Sri Harguru Charan, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri R.P. Singh, Additional Chief .Standing Counsel. On the last date i.e. on July 15, 1985 Sri R.P. Singh, Additional Chief Standing Counsel prayed for and was grantee two weeks' further time to file counter affidavit in order to ascertain the result of ceiling proceedings. The case was adjourned and was directed to be listed on July 31, 1985. Sri R.P. Singh states that he has sent a registered letter on .July 17, 1985 to the District Magistrate, Shahjahanpur. But no reply has been received nor any official has come to file counter affidavit. Consequently, no counter affidavit could be filed. He, however, submitted all possible arguments that could have been urged in support of the impugned orders. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has urged that in the ceiling matter the appeal was filed by the petitioner and the learned III Additional District Judge by order dated August 7, 1982 has allowed the appeal and has held the transfer made in favour of the petitioner to be legal and valid. As the plots sold to the petitioner by the aforesaid sale-deed are in possession of the petitioner, the judgment of the III Additional District Judge in appeal under the U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act has become final. Accordingly the sale-deed deserves to be mutated in the revenue papers. As the plots sold to the petitioner by the aforesaid sale-deed are in possession of the petitioner, the judgment of the III Additional District Judge in appeal under the U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act has become final. Accordingly the sale-deed deserves to be mutated in the revenue papers. The Deputy Director of Consolidation has held that as in respect of the plots in dispute the proceedings under the U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act (in short the Ceiling Act), are in progress, hence revision cannot be decided. 5. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties I am of the view that the petition should succeed. 6. A supplementary affidavit has been filed by the learned counsel for the petitioner along with a copy of the judgment dated August 7, 1982 passed by the III Addl. District Judge allowing the appeal of the petitioner against the order of the Prescribed Authority under the Ceiling Act. The sale-deed in favour of the petitioner has been held to be legal. The Deputy Director of Consolidation has rejected the revision just by making an observation that as the matter is pending before the Ceiling Authorities hence he has got no jurisdiction to decide the matter. As the matter has been decided by the Ceiling Authorities and this fact has been brought to the notice of this Court it can be taken into consideration while deciding the petition on merits. No counter affidavit has been filed, as indicated earlier, inspite of the time being granted. Hence there is nothing on the record of the case to indicate that order in favour of the petitioner passed by the III Additional District Judge was incorrect or that no such order was passed. I, accordingly, have no option but to rely on the affidavit filed by the petitioner bringing on record of the case the order passed by the III Additional District Judge under the Ceiling Act. 7. As the appeal has been decided and the sale-deed executed in favour of the petitioner has been held to be legal, hence the same sale-deed cannot be rejected by the Deputy Director of Consolidation and it deserves to be mutated in the revenue papers in favour of the petitioner. The order passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation is manifestly erroneous in law and the petition deserves to be allowed. 8. The order passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation is manifestly erroneous in law and the petition deserves to be allowed. 8. In view of the discussions made above, the petition succeeds and is hereby allowed. The impugned order passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation dated May 12, 1977 is quashed. The Deputy Director of Consolidation is directed to decide the revision afresh after hearing the parties. The petitioner is directed to file a copy of the order of the Prescribed Authority and that of the III Additional District Judge, Shahjahanpur passed under the Ceiling Act before the Deputy Director of Consolidation. It shall, however, be open to State or the Gaon Sabha to show there that the orders passed by the Ceiling Authorities have not become final. There shall, however, be no order as to costs. 9. A copy of the judgment may be given to the learned counsel for the parties on payment of counsel charges at an early date.