ASHOK BHUSHAN, J. ( 1 ) HEARD Sri M. C. Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner. ( 2 ) THESE three writ petitions have been filed against the same order dated 25. 4. 2003, passed by the Additional Commissioner. Consolidation, U. P. , Lucknow. ( 3 ) BRIEF facts giving rise to those writ petitions are : ( 4 ) FACTS in all the three writ petitions are identical. Reference of facts in Writ Petition No. 21908 of 2003 are sufficient to dispose of the controversy raised in all three writ petitions. ( 5 ) OBJECTIONS under Section 9a of the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (hereinafter to be referred as the Act) was filed by the petitioner claiming bhumidhari rights. The land in dispute was recorded in the name of Gaon Sabha. The Consolidation Officer allowed the objection and directed recording of the name of the petitioner. An appeal was filed by respondent no. 3 which was dismissed by the Settlement Officer of Consolidation. A revision was filed before the Deputy Director of Consolidation against the order of the Settlement Officer of consolidation. The Revision No. 872 of 2003 is pending before the Deputy Director of consolidation, Bulandshahr. Other two revisions which are also pending as Revision Nos. 871 of 2003 and 873 of 2003. The petitioner filed an application for transfer of the aforesaid three revisions from the Court of the Deputy Director of Consolidation. The transfer applications were filed under Rule 65 before the Additional Commissioner, Consolidation, U. P. , Lucknow. The additional Commissioner, Consolidation, U. P. , Lucknow, by the impugned order dated 25. 4. 2003 disposed of the transfer application with the observation that the petitioner may file an application for transfer before the District Deputy Director of Consolidation. The said order dated 25. 4. 2003 has been challenged in this writ petition. Sri M. C. Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the District Deputy Director of Consolidation does not have any power to transfer a revision pending before the Deputy Director of Consolidation. He placed reliance on two judgments of this Court, namely, Mewa Lal and Ors. , v. Deputy Director of Consolidation and Ors. 1981 AWC 25 and Devi Prasad and Ors. v. Raghunath Prasad and others, 1982 RD 51. He placed reliance on two judgments of this Court, namely, Mewa Lal and Ors. , v. Deputy Director of Consolidation and Ors. 1981 AWC 25 and Devi Prasad and Ors. v. Raghunath Prasad and others, 1982 RD 51. The learned counsel for the petitioner has also referred to notification issued by the State government in exercise of powers under Sections 41 and 44 of the Act by which Consolidation commissioner has been appointed as Ex Officio Director of Consolidation. ( 6 ) I have considered the submissions and perused the record. ( 7 ) THE question raised in this writ petition is as to whether the District Deputy Director of consolidation has jurisdiction to transfer a revision pending before the Deputy Director of consolidation. Rule 65 of U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Rules, 1954, is rule relating to transfer of cases pending before the Assistant Consolidation Officer, Consolidation Officer, settlement Officer of Consolidation, and the Deputy Director of Consolidation. Rule 65 as it exists after 21st Amendment Rules, 1980, dated 20. 2. 1980 is as follows : "65. (See Section 54 ).-- (1) The Settlement Officer, Consolidation, may withdraw any case from the file of any Consolidation Officer or Assistant Consolidation Officer subordinate to him may refer the same for disposal to any other Consolidation Officer or Assistant Consolidation Officer competent to deal therewith. (1a) The officer before whom appeals, revisions or references under the provisions of the Act or these Rules are instituted may transfer any case instituted or pending before him to any other officer empowered to hear and decide such case, or recall case pending before any other officer from the file of that officer to his own file. The District Deputy Director of Consolidation of a district where Joint/deputy/ Assistant Director of Consolidation is posted may call for record of any revision or case pending before such officer for disposal and may transfer it to such officer if he is unable to decide it for some reason. (2) The Director of Consolidation may withdraw any case from the file of any Settlement officer, Consolidation, and refer the same to any other Settlement Officer, Consolidation for disposal. (2) The Director of Consolidation may withdraw any case from the file of any Settlement officer, Consolidation, and refer the same to any other Settlement Officer, Consolidation for disposal. " ( 8 ) RULE 65 (1a) specifically provides that the District Deputy Director of Consolidation of a district where Joint/deputy/ Assistant Director of Consolidation is posted may call for record of any revision or case pending before such officer for disposal and may transfer it to such officer if he is unable to decide it for some reason. The said rule expressly gives jurisdiction to District deputy Director of Consolidation to transfer a revision pending before the Deputy Director of consolidation. ( 9 ) THE counsel for the petitioner has relied on the judgment of this Court in Mewalal and others case (supra) in which while considering Rule 65 (1a) of U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Rules. 1954, this Court held that the power to recall cannot be considered to be power of transfer. It is relevant to note the facts and controversy, which was raised in the above case was that a transfer application was filed before the District Deputy Director of Consolidation for transferring a revision which was pending before the Deputy Director of Consolidation. While dismissing the transfer application, observation was made that the Deputy Director of Consolidation shall decide the matter after making local inspection. The question which was raised was as to whether the District Deputy Director of Consolidation had any jurisdiction to direct the Deputy director of Consolidation to decide the revision after making local inspection. In the above context, it was held by this Court in paragraphs 3 and 4 of the aforesaid judgment : "3. The first question that arises for consideration is whether Sri M. S. Sand had any jurisdiction to direct the Deputy Director to decide the revision after making local inspection. It was argued by K. B. Garg appearing on behalf of Gaon Sabha that District Deputy Director of Consolidation being superior authority under the Act was empowered to pass the impugned order and as Sri sand was officiating as Collector and was District Deputy Director of Consolidation the order passed by him was in accordance with law. The argument is without any merit. The power of transfer has to be culled from provisions of Act or Rules. The argument is without any merit. The power of transfer has to be culled from provisions of Act or Rules. In this connection it is relevant to mention that Sub-rules (1) and (3) of Rule 65 of C. H. Rules permit withdrawal of cases pending before the Consolidation Officer or Settlement Officer of Consolidation. There is no such power in respect of revisions being heard by Deputy Director. Sub-rule (1a) was added to Rule 65 in 1964 but it permits transfer of cases including revisions by the officer before whom they are instituted to any other officer. He is also authorised to recall case pending before any officer to his own file. The power to recall cannot be considered to be power of transfer as has been argued by Sri Garg. It is to effectuate the first part of Rule 1a as the officer to whom the case may be sent for disposal may be transferred and then it may become necessary to recall and allot it to other officer. It cannot be equated with power of transfer conferred on a superior authority to transfer a case pending before subordinate authority on the usual ground of bias etc. 4. The absence of any provision in the Act or Rules for transferring a revision being heard by a deputy Director is based on salutary principle that he being the higher authority under the Act to adjudicate dispute between parties cannot be subjected to supervisory control of District Deputy director. While exercising revisional power a Deputy Director is not subordinate to District deputy Director notwithstanding his administrative powers and duty of maintaining record of rights, etc. It is further clear from Sub-section (4a) of Section 3 which defines Deputy Director as including a District Deputy Director, that he exercises concurrent power. Under rules a revision is instituted before District Deputy Director and by virtue of Sub-rule (1a) to Rule 65 it can be transferred to another Deputy Director or recalled to own file but that does not make a deputy Director subordinate to District Deputy Director. An officer exercising concurrent power cannot transfer a case pending before another officer on ground of bias, etc. Sri Sand therefore, had no jurisdiction to hear transfer application in respect of revision which was not only pending before Sri Singh but it had been heard, judgment dictated, signed and locked. An officer exercising concurrent power cannot transfer a case pending before another officer on ground of bias, etc. Sri Sand therefore, had no jurisdiction to hear transfer application in respect of revision which was not only pending before Sri Singh but it had been heard, judgment dictated, signed and locked. " ( 10 ) IT is pertinent to note that Rule 65 (1a) was differently worded prior to amendment dated 20. 2. 1980. Rule 65 (1a) as substituted by notification dated 25. 3. 1964 was following : " (1a) The officer before whom appeals, revisions or references under the provisions of the Act or these Rules are instituted may transfer any case instituted or pending before him to any other officer empowered to hear and decide such case, or recall case pending before any other officer from the file of that officer to his own file. " ( 11 ) THE judgment of this Court in Mewalals case (supra), considered Rule 65 (1a) as it existed after amendment dated 25. 3. 1964. Rule 65 (1a) as it existed before 21st Amendment Rules. 19. 80, did not contain the specific provision empowering the District Deputy Director of consolidation to transfer a revision. The Court considering the Mewalals case (supra) has observed in paragraphs 3 and 4 as quoted above. The judgment of Mewalals case (supra) was based on unamended Rule 65 (1a) as it existed before 1980s amendment. After the amendment of Rule 65 (1a) by 21st Amendment Rules, 1980, following specific provision has been added under Rule (1a) : "the District Deputy Director of Consolidation of a district where Joint/deputy/ Assistant director of Consolidation is posted may call for record of any revision or case pending before such officer for disposal and may transfer it to such officer if he is unable to decide it for some reason. " the statutory intendment by amending Rule 65 (1a) in above manner is to confer specifically the power of transfer to the District Deputy Director of Consolidation. ( 12 ) THE second judgment relied by counsel for the petitioner in Devi Prasads case (supra) was also a case which considered Rule 65 (1a) as it existed prior to U. P. Amendment Rules, 1980. Rule 65 (1a) as was noted and considered in Devi Prasads case (supra), shows that it was not amended rule. ( 12 ) THE second judgment relied by counsel for the petitioner in Devi Prasads case (supra) was also a case which considered Rule 65 (1a) as it existed prior to U. P. Amendment Rules, 1980. Rule 65 (1a) as was noted and considered in Devi Prasads case (supra), shows that it was not amended rule. This Court in the said judgment made following observations : "it seems to me that reading Sections 42 and 4a together, administratively Deputy Director of consolidation are subordinate to the Director of Consolidation and therefore, the latter could exercise the power of transfer as the superior authority. " the above observations were made by this Court when Rule 65 (1a) was not amended and as it stood before the U. P. Amendment Rules, 1980, When by U. P. Amendment Rules, 1980, the power of transfer has been statutorily conferred on District Deputy Director of Consolidation, the question of exercising administrative power does not arise. Further, the said observations are not applicable when now Rule 65 (1a) has been amended specifically empowering the District deputy Director of Consolidation to transfer a revision. ( 13 ) THE counsel for the petitioner has also referred a judgment of this Court dated 23. 4. 1992, passed in Writ Petition No. 11075 of 1992, Devi Prasad Singh v. Commissioner of Consolidation and Ors. , in which this Court observed that Consolidation Commissioner is the Director of consolidation as per notification dated 23. 2. 1958. The said controversy does not arise in the present case nor the question is as to whether Consolidation Commissioner is Director of consolidation or not. ( 14 ) IN view of foregoing discussions, it is clear that District Deputy Director of Consolidation is fully empowered by Rule 65 (1a) as amended by U. P. Amendment Rules, 1980, to transfer a revision from the Court of any Deputy Director of Consolidation. The Additional Commissioner, while making the observation in the impugned order dated 25. 4. 2003, that the petitioner is free to file a transfer application before the District Deputy Director of Consolidation did not commit any illegality and the said observation is in conformity with the scheme of Rule 65 (1a ). I do not find any error in the order dated 25. 4. 2003, warranting interference by this Court under Article 226 of Constitution of India. I do not find any error in the order dated 25. 4. 2003, warranting interference by this Court under Article 226 of Constitution of India. ( 15 ) THE writ petition lacks merit and is rejected summarily. .