JUDGMENT K. P. Singh, J. - The dispute between the parties in the present writ petition relates to agricultural land situate in village Kodari Nadhogarh, district Jalaun. The opposite party No. 2 Allah Tala had filed an objection under Section 9 (2) of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) leading to case No. 13229 which was decided against the opposite party No. 2 through the judgment dated 28-4-1980. Aggrieved by the judgment of the consolidation officer, the opposite party No. 2 had preferred an appeal before the settlement officer of consolidation, Jalaun at Orai which was numbered as 436 of 1980. On the application of the petitioner the aforesaid appeal was transferred to the court of the settlement officer of consolidation, Kanpur who dismissed the appeal of the opposite party No. 2 through his judgment dated 29-5-1984. Against the aforesaid judgment the opposite party No. 2 filed a revision petition numbered as 680 of 1984 under Section 48 of the Act in the court of the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Jalaun at Orai. An objection had been filed by the petitioner that the revisional court had no jurisdiction to hear the revision petition. The revisional court has not accepted the contention of the petitioner through his order dated 20-12-1987. Aggrieved by the order of the revisional court the petitioner has approached this court under Article 226 of the Constitution. 2. The petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs : - (i) To issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated 20-1-1987 (Annexure III) passed by respondent No. 1 and proceedings in revision No. 680 of 1984 pending in the court of respondent No. 1. (ii) To issue a writ order or direction in the nature of Mandamus by commanding the respondent No. 1 not to proceed further with the revision No. 680 of 1984 pending in the court of respondent No. 1. (iii) To issue any other further order or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. (iv) To award the costs of the writ petition. 3. The main grievance of the petitioner before me is that the Dy. (iii) To issue any other further order or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. (iv) To award the costs of the writ petition. 3. The main grievance of the petitioner before me is that the Dy. Director of Consolidation, Jalaun at Orai has no jurisdiction to hear the revision petition against the judgment of the appellate authority of Kanpur in the facts and circumstances of the present case. 4. The learned counsel for the contesting opposite party has tried to support the impugned order of the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Jalaun at Orai, and has emphasised that only the appeal preferred by the opposite party No. 2 in the present writ petition had been transferred to the court at Kanpur which was decided by the appellate court, therefore, since the disputed property was situate in Jalaun, the Deputy Director of Consolidation at Jalaun had full jurisdiction to decide the revision petition. According to him the impugned order does not suffer from any patent error of law and deserves to be confirmed. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner has invited my attention to the provisions of Section 48 of the Act which reads as below : - "The Director of Consolidation may call for and examine the record of any case decided or proceedings taken by any subordinate authority for the purpose of satisfying himself as to the regularity of the proceeding or as to the correctness, legality or propriety of any order other than an interlocutory order passed by such authority in the case or proceedings and may after allowing the parties concerned an opportunity of being heard make such order in the case or proceedings as he thinks fit." 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner has also pointed out rule 111 of the aforesaid Act which reads as below :- "An application under Section 48 of the Act shall be presented by the appellant or his duly authorised agent to the Joint/Deputy/Assistant Director of Consolidation, nominated by the Director of Consolidation, Uttar Pradesh for the district or settlement Officer (Consolidation) unit concerned or failing posting of any such Joint/Deputy/ Assistant Director of Consolidation in the district, to the District Deputy Director of Consolidation within 30 days of the order against which the application is directed. It shall be accompanied by copy of the judgment or order in respect of which the application is preferred. Copies of judgment or order if any, of other subordinate authorities is in respect of dispute also shall be filed along with the application." 7. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner in view of the aforementioned section and the Rule, the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Jalaun, had no jurisdiction to hear the revision petition against the appellate authority of Kanpur. 8. Section 4 of the (J.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 defines 'Director of Consolidation' which means the person appointed as such by the State Government to exercise the powers and perform the duties of the Director of Consolidation under this Act or the rules made thereunder and shall include an Additional Director of Consolidation and a Joint Director of Consolidation. 9. Section 3 (4-A) defines, 'Deputy Director of Consolidation' which means a person appointed as such by the State Government to exercise such powers and perform such duties of the Director of Consolidation as may be delegated to him by the State Government and shall include a District Deputy Director of Consolidation and Assistant Director of Consolidation. 10. In view of the above definitions and Rule 111, I think that the contentions raised on behalf of the petitioner have force. The said Rule of the Act emphasises the officers of the Director as competent authorities to entertain the revision petition. Therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the present case I think that the revision petition against the order of the appellate authority of Kanpur should have been preferred in the district of Kanpur. The reason of the revisional court for entertaining the revision petition on the ground that only appeal had been transferred to Kanpur for decision and no other proceedings for ever does not appear to me as correct. It is well known that the order of the original officer merges in the order of the appellate authority, therefore, it was incumbent upon the revisional court to have addressed itself to the question whether the appellate authority was subordinate to the revisional court in the facts and circumstances of the present case. It is well known that the order of the original officer merges in the order of the appellate authority, therefore, it was incumbent upon the revisional court to have addressed itself to the question whether the appellate authority was subordinate to the revisional court in the facts and circumstances of the present case. To my mind, the appellate authority was of District Kanpur, therefore the revisional court of Jalaun cannot have jurisdiction to look into the illegality, irregularity or impropriety committed by the appellate authority of Kanpur The impugned order of the visional court dated 20-1-1987 appears to me suffering from present error of (sic) in view of the above quoted provisions of the Consolidation Act and Rules. 11 Section 42 of the Code of Civil Procedure provides as below : - "The Court executing a decree sent to it shall have the same powers in executing such decree as if it had been passed by itself. All persons disobeying or obstructing the execution of the decree shall be punishable by such court in the same manner as if it had passed the decrees. And its order in executing such decrees shall be subject to the same rules in respect of appeal as if the decree had been passed by itself." 12. Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure also provides for an appeal from every decree passed by any Court exercising original jurisdiction to the court authorised to hear appeals from the decisions of such Court. 13. No doubt the aforesaid two provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure do not strictly apply to the proceedings under the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act but the principles underlying thereunder do provide a guideline to the effect that the revision petition against the order in appeal would lie to that court where it ordinarily lies against the impugned order of the appellate authority. In the facts and circumstances of this case I think that the revisional court of Jalaun at Orai has no jurisdiction to hear the revision petition against the order of the appellate authority of Kanpur. The impugned order of the revisional court dated 20-1-1987 suffers from patent error of law and the Deputy Director of Consolidation Jalaun has no jurisdiction to entertain the revision petition against the order of the appellate authority of Kanpur. The impugned order deserves to be quashed. The impugned order of the revisional court dated 20-1-1987 suffers from patent error of law and the Deputy Director of Consolidation Jalaun has no jurisdiction to entertain the revision petition against the order of the appellate authority of Kanpur. The impugned order deserves to be quashed. Further hearing in the revision petition pending before the Deputy Director of Consolidation Jalaun at Orai cannot proceed in view of the discussions made above. The ends of justice would be met by quashing the impugned judgment of the revisional court dated 20-1-1987 contained in Annexure III attached with the writ petition. 14. In the result, the writ petition succeeds and the impugned judgment of the revisional court dated 29-l-1987 is hereby quashed and the revisional court is directed to pass final order in the revisional proceedings pending before it in the light of the observations made above. It would be open to the opposite party No. 2 to file revision petition before the competent court hereafter and the same shall be dealt with strictly in accordance with law. Parties are directed to bear their own costs.