JUDGMENT Hon’ble Ran Vijai Singh, J.—Through this writ petition, the petitioners have prayed for issuing writ of certiorari quashing the order dated 27.6.2012, passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Bulandshahr, Camp Gautam Buddh Nagar (In short DDC), by which the revision filed by the petitioners has been dismissed on the ground that the DDC, Bulandshahr, Camp Gautam Buddh Nagar has no jurisdiction to entertain the revision with the further direction to the revisionists to avail the remedy before the appropriate Court. 2. The facts giving rise to this case are that, it appears, against the judgment and order dated 5.3.2011, passed by Consolidation Officer, Gautam Buddh Nagar in Case No. 45/63, an appeal was filed before the Settlement Officer, Consolidation, Gautam Buddh Nagar (in short SOC), which was numbered as Appeal No. 81 of 2006. The said appeal was transferred, on the Transfer Application No. 77 of 2011, filed under Rule 65-A (2) of the Uttar Pradesh Consolidation of Holdings Rules, 1954 before SOC, Meerut, by the order of the Joint Director of Consolidation on 28.4.2011. 3. After transfer of the appeal, the decision rendered in the appeal by the SOC, Meerut on 4.7.2011 was Challenged through revision filed by the petitioners/revisionists before the DDC, Gautam Budh Nagar. The DDC, Gautam Buddh Nagar dismissed the revision on the ground that the revision would be maintainable before the DDC of the district of which district’s SOC has decided the appeal. Learned counsel for the petitioners has vehemently contended that the view taken by the DDC is illegal. In his submissions, the revision would lie before the DDC of the district in whose jurisdiction land in dispute is situated and not before the DDC of the district of which SOC has decided the appeal. In his submissions, the transfer order was passed in certain circumstances, and the transfer of the matter to another district will not confer the jurisdiction of the revisional Court also at the place where the appeal was transferred. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance upon the judgments of this Court in the case of Ramdas Rai v. Deputy Director of Consolidation, Deoria and others, 1994 RD 62; and Haider Ali v. State of U.P. and others, 2012 (1) ADJ 522 . 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance upon the judgments of this Court in the case of Ramdas Rai v. Deputy Director of Consolidation, Deoria and others, 1994 RD 62; and Haider Ali v. State of U.P. and others, 2012 (1) ADJ 522 . In the case of Ramdas Rai (Supra), it appears, an appeal was instituted at Gorakhpur and the Consolidation Commissioner, U.P. directed the SOC, Gorakhpur to hold a camp at Deoria and decide the appeal. The appeal was decided at Deoria by the SOC, Gorakhpur on the direction of the Consolidation Commissioner. The revisions were filed before the DDC, Deoria. The other side has taken objection that the DDC, Deoria will have no jurisdiction to entertain the revision, as the order in appeal had been passed by the SOC, Gorakhpur, holding a camp at Deoria and not by SOC, Deoria. The objection taken by the other side was sustained and it has been held by this Court that the DDC, Deoria will have no jurisdiction to entertain the revision against the appellate order passed by the DDC, Gorakhpur, camp at Deoria. Therefore, the decision cited by the learned counsel for the petitioners is of no help. 5. So far as the decision rendered in Haider Ali (supra) is concerned, learned single Judge of this Court taking note of the decision in Prashuram v. Deputy Director of Consolidation, Ballia, 2006 (4) ADJ 322 , has held that revision would lie before the DDC of the district where the appeal had been orignally filed and not before the DDC of the transferee district. It may be noticed that later on the learned single Judge has reviewed his judgment and stayed all further proceedings pursuant to the judgment of this Court dated 30.11.2011 taking note of paragraph 8 of the judgment in Prashuram (supra). 6. In the case of Darbari Lal v. D.D.C. Jalaun, 1989 RD 304, another learned single Judge of this Court has held that the revision would lie before the DDC of the district of which district‘s SOC has decided the appeal. For appreciation relevant paragraph of the aforesaid judgment is reproduced hereinbelow: “In view of the above definition and Rule 111, I think that the contentions raised on behalf of the petitiner have force. The said Rule of the Act emphasises the officers of the Director as competent authorities to entertain the revision petition. For appreciation relevant paragraph of the aforesaid judgment is reproduced hereinbelow: “In view of the above definition and Rule 111, I think that the contentions raised on behalf of the petitiner 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 petitioner against the order of the appellate authority of the 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 has 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 authoirty, therefore, it was incumbent upon the revisional Court to have addressed itself to the question wherther the appellate authority was usbordinate to the revisional Court in the facts and circumstances of the present. To my mind the appellate authority was of District Kanpur, therefore the revisional Court of Jalaun cannot have jurisdictiodn to look into the illegality, irregularity or impropriety committed by the appellate authority of Kanpur.....” (emphasis supplied) 7. Following the judgment in Darbari Lal (supra) another learned single Judge of this Court has also taken the same view in Prashuram (supra). In Prashuram (supra) all other contrary decisions have been considered and distinguished and to my knowledge this judgment still holds the field. So far as judgment in Haider Ali (Supra) is concerned, as has been noticed the learned single Judge himself has stayed the further proceedings pursuant to the judgment rendered in that case. 8. In view of the foregoing discussions and law laid down by this Court in the aforesaid cases, no infirmity can be attached with the order impugned, passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Bulandshahr, Camp Gautam Budh Nagar. The writ petition lacks merit and is hereby dismissed. —————