JUDGMENT Anjani Kumar Mishra, J. 1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents. This writ petition has been filed challenging the order dated 20.11.2014 passed by the Commissioner Basti, Division Basti and the order dated 29.7.2013 passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate Sadar Basti. 2. Facts of the case briefly stated are that three mutation cases are said to be pending regarding the same property. These three separate mutation cases have been filed claiming on the basis of different documents. One case is based on a mortgage deed. The second claim is based on a sale deed while in the third case mutation is claimed on the basis of will. 3. It appears that the petitioners filed an application under section 192-A of the U.P. Land Revenue Act for consolidating these three cases. This application was rejected and the order rejecting this application has been affirmed by the Revisional Court. Hence this writ petition. 4. Learned Counsel for the petitioners has submitted that these three cases pertained to the same property and, therefore they should have been consolidated and in failing to do so the Courts below have committed manifest illegality. He has placed reliance on the judgments Mahant Baba Dharam Das v. Mahant Dharam Das, AIR 1917 All. 336 as also a judgment of the apex Court in the case of Ram Badan Rai v. Union of India, (1998) LS (SC) 1040 insofar as the first judgment cited is concerned, the same deals with civil suit governed by the Civil Procedure Code. This case law therefore, has not application in the instant petition which pertains to section 192-A of the U.P. Land Revenue Act. 5. The second case cited related to a boundary dispute between the States of Bihar and Uttar Pradesh which arose on account of the fluvial action of river Ganga separating the two states. 6. The observations made in paragraph 59 of this judgment, relied upon by learned Counsel for the petitioner were therefore, made is an entirely different contest and they therefore do not help the petitioner. 7. 6. The observations made in paragraph 59 of this judgment, relied upon by learned Counsel for the petitioner were therefore, made is an entirely different contest and they therefore do not help the petitioner. 7. Section 192-A of the U.P. Land Revenue Act which is relevant for deciding the controversy in the writ petition is extracted below : "192-A Consolidation of casesWhere 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 Court they shall, on application being made by any party to the 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." 8. Bare perusal of this section reveals that two ingredients are required to be present before cases under the U.P. Land Revenue Act can be consolidated. The first condition is that the question in two suits should be substantially the same and secondly that the cause of action in the cases sought to be consolidated should be same. 9. As already observed herein above, the cause of action in each of the three mutation cases sought to be consolidated is clearly different, being based respectively on a mortgage deed, sale-deed and a will. It is, therefore, clear that the second condition contained in section 192-A is not satisfied. For this reason alone, the three cases could not have been consolidated and the application is in this regard, has been rightly rejected by the Courts below. I, therefore, find no illegality in the impugned order. The writ petition is devoid of merits and is, accordingly dismissed.