(1.) THIS petition is directed against the orders passed by the consolidation authorities.
(2.) ON commencement of proceedings under the Consolidation of Holdings Act three sets of objections were filed one of them being by the Petitioners in respect of the land in dispute. It is no body's case that the Petitioners did not appear on the date specified in the summons. It can, therefore, be presumed that they appeared on the first day fixed. They led evidence in support of their objections. Ultimately 27 -9 -1961 was fixed for arguments on all the three objections. On that date, the Petitioners allege, they were present and sitting outside the court room but the case was not called out to their knowledge. On the other hand they were told that it had been adjourned for the next day. But it appears that the Consolidation Officer took up the case and decided the objections. The Petitioners' objection was dismissed for default of appearance. The Petitioners went up in appeal. The Settlement Officer set aside the order of the Consolidation Officer and remanded the case for consideration afresh on the merits. Respondents 5 to 7 filed a second appeal. The Assistant Director of Consolidation held that Section 11(1) of the Act was subject to Section 41 of the Act and consequently provisions of Sections 200 and 201 of the UP Land Revenue Act were applicable. In view of Section 201 no appeal lay against the order of the Consolidation Officer dismissing the Petitioners' objection for default. He set aside the remand order. The Petitioners' revision was also dismissed on 6 -2 -1962.
(3.) CH . IX of the UP Land Revenue Act deals with procedure of revenue courts and revenue officers. Ch. X deals with appeals, references and revision. Ch. X will not have an application where the Consolidation of Holdings Act specifically provides for appeals or revisions. Sections 200 and 201 are in Ch. IX. Section 200 reads as follows: