JUDGMENT A.N. Segal, Chairman - In this matter, the Tahsildar had decided three mutation proceedings, on merits vide his order dated 6.2.81 because the parties were the same and the land involved was also the same. The Sub-Divisional Officer, by his order dated 25.8.81, has held that the Tahsildar should not have consolidated the three mutation proceedings together without obtaining the approval of the Sub-Divisional Officer in accordance with the provisions of Section 192-A of the U.P. Land Revenue Act which reads as under: "Consolidation of Cases - Where more cases than one involving substantially the same question for determination and based on the same cause of action are pending in one or more courts they shall, on application being made by any party to court to which the court or courts concerned are all subordinate, be consolidated in one court and decided by a single judgment. Such cases may be filed direct in the superior court." 2. This envisaged two situations. One where cases pertaining to the same matter and the same cause of action and between the same parties are pending in different Courts and the other where cases are pending in one arid the same court. The word used in the section is "may" for filing such cases direct in the superior court. If the legislators had intended that the word "may" should mean "snail, which it does not mean, they should have said so in the statute. If it was the intention of the rule-makers, they could have used the word "shall". U.P. land Revenue Act is a self-contained Act and the provision' have been mentioned in the U.P. Land Revenue Act and the rules framed thereunder or the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act or the Rules, thereunder. Where there are no specific provisions under the Act or the Rules the principles of natural justice or rules on the subject enumerated in the Code of Civil Procedure which is the law of the land, have to be taken into consideration. The intention of the law is never to harass people. It is to prove convenience for speedy justice. Mutuation proceedings A are based on principle of speedy justice so that the land records are maintained correctly. The intention of the law is never to harass people. It is to prove convenience for speedy justice. Mutuation proceedings A are based on principle of speedy justice so that the land records are maintained correctly. Obviously, if similar cases are pending for the same cause of action and same land in different courts, the party has no option but to move the superior court. The party can always move before the lower court if the cases are pending before it shall all the cases be consolidated otherwise miscarriage of justice can occur simply for the reason that cases are taken on different files on different dates by the same court and the court may pass different orders in different cases in which the matter involved is substantially the same. Thus, there may be conflicting orders by the same court. This situation is not warranted in the interest of justice. 3. Therefore, I have no option except to accept the recommendation of the learned Additional Commissioner and set aside the order of the Sub-Divisional Officer and direct that the cases be remanded to the court of S.D.O. for fresh disposal of the appeals on merits instead of on technical issue on which he has passed the impugned order. 4. This order will govern reference Nos. 444 and 445 of 1984-85 Bulandshahr.