# Beer Singh v. Board of Revenue Alld. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2024) 11 ILRA 205
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2024-11-21
- **Case number:** Writ- B No. 3143 of 1993
- **Bench:** Saurabh Shyam Shamshery
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/beer-singh-v-board-of-revenue-alld-ors-50998
- **Pages:** 7

## Headnote

D.N. Tyagi, A.B.L. Gaur, Amar Jeet Singh,
Ashish Kumar Shukla, Deepak Sharma,
G.M. Tripathi, Gayyoor Ali, Girish Chandra
Shukla, H.N. Sharma, Mahima Kushwaha,
Mukesh Kumar Kushwaha, P.S. Chauhan,
Raj Kamal Singh, Raj Kishore Yadav, Rajiv
Sisodia, S.C.

(A) Land Revenue Law - U.P. Zamindari
Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 -
Section 198(2) - Writ jurisdiction - Article
206 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
226 - Court of law - Court having
extraordinary, equitable and discretionary
jurisdiction
-
In
extraordinary
circumstances the High Court under writ
jurisdiction
may
exercise
equitable
jurisdiction in the interest of justice would
be relevant - Cardinal principle of exercise
of extraordinary jurisdiction - In a given
case, even if some action or order
challenged in the writ petition is found to
be illegal and invalid, the High Court while
exercising its extraordinary jurisdiction
thereunder can refuse to upset it with a
view to doing substantial justice between
the parties - power to pass such orders as
public
interest
dictates
&
equity
projects.(Para - 18)

Dispute arose regarding piece of land - being
part of two resolutions (1972 and 1975) - for
allotment of Patta under provisions of U.P.Z.A. -
1972 resolution, though upheld, was not acted
upon - 1975 resolution granted possession to
petitioners - Petitioners were beneficiaries under
the 1975 resolution - their possession protected
by interim orders for decades - earlier resolution
was later challenged on equity grounds.

(Para - 1 to 10)

HELD:- Court exercised equitable jurisdiction.
Set
aside
orders
dated
24.09.1992
and
15.07.1981. Protected petitioners' possession
and directed fresh allotment proceedings to
include eligible contesting respondents. (Para -
19)

Petition disposed of. (E-7)

List of Cases cited:

C.C.R.A.S. & anr. Vs Bikartan Das & ors., 2023
INSC 733

## Text

11 All. Beer Singh Vs. Board of Revenue Alld. & Ors.
205
the property and puts the transferee in
possession with the clear animus and on
the distinct understanding that from that
time onwards he shall have no right of title
to the property. In such a case the owner of
the property does not retain any vestige of
right in regard to the property and his
mental attitude towards the property is that
it has ceased to belong to him altogether.
The transferee after getting into possession
retains the same with the clean animus that
he has become the absolute owner of the
property and in complete negation of any
right or title of the transferor, his
enjoyment is solely as owner in his right
and not derivatively or in recognition of the
title of any person. So far as the vendor is
concerned both in mind and actual
conduct, there is a total divestiture of all
his right, title and interest in the property.
This applies only in a case where there is a
clear manifestation of the intention of the
owner to divest himself of the right over the
property. On the other hand in the case of
an executory contract the possession of the
transferee until the date of registration of
the conveyance is permissive or derivative
and in law is deemed to be on behalf of the
owner himself. The correctness of the
decision in Annamalai v. Muthiah (supra)
cannot, therefore, be doubted."

(Emphasis supplied)

18.
The
above
consideration
is
squarely applicable in present case on facts
also that a purchaser who got into
possession under an executory contract of
sale would be on only permissive in
character, he cannot contend that his
possession was adverse and it will remain
as a permissive possession in contradiction
to a possession in the case of sale.
Judgments
relied
by
learned
Senior
Advocate for petitioner in Puttu Singh
(supra)
and
Bharit
(supra)
would,
therefore, not be applicable in present case
since it was in regard to 'sale' and not in
regard to an 'executory contract'. Present
case is squarely covered by Achal Reddy
(supra) on facts as well as on law against
the petitioner's case.

Conclusion

19. The outcome of above discussion
is that there is no ground to interfere in
concurrent findings of three Revenue
Courts. Therefore, present writ petition is
accordingly, dismissed.
----------
(2024) 11 ILRA 205
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 21.11.2024

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SAURABH SHYAM
SHAMSHERY, J.

Writ- B No. 3143 of 1993

Beer Singh ...Petitioner
Versus
Board of Revenue Alld. & Ors.
 ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
C.S. Sharma, A.K. Sharma, Ajai Shankar
Pathak, R.P. Singh

Counsel for the Respondents:
D.N. Tyagi, A.B.L. Gaur, Amar Jeet Singh,
Ashish Kumar Shukla, Deepak Sharma,
G.M. Tripathi, Gayyoor Ali, Girish Chandra
Shukla, H.N. Sharma, Mahima Kushwaha,
Mukesh Kumar Kushwaha, P.S. Chauhan,
Raj Kamal Singh, Raj Kishore Yadav, Rajiv
Sisodia, S.C.

(A) Land Revenue Law - U.P. Zamindari
Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 -
Section 198(2) - Writ jurisdiction - Article
206 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
226 - Court of law - Court having
extraordinary, equitable and discretionary
jurisdiction
-
In
extraordinary
circumstances the High Court under writ
jurisdiction
may
exercise
equitable
jurisdiction in the interest of justice would
be relevant - Cardinal principle of exercise
of extraordinary jurisdiction - In a given
case, even if some action or order
challenged in the writ petition is found to
be illegal and invalid, the High Court while
exercising its extraordinary jurisdiction
thereunder can refuse to upset it with a
view to doing substantial justice between
the parties - power to pass such orders as
public
interest
dictates
&
equity
projects.(Para - 18)

Dispute arose regarding piece of land - being
part of two resolutions (1972 and 1975) - for
allotment of Patta under provisions of U.P.Z.A. -
1972 resolution, though upheld, was not acted
upon - 1975 resolution granted possession to
petitioners - Petitioners were beneficiaries under
the 1975 resolution - their possession protected
by interim orders for decades - earlier resolution
was later challenged on equity grounds.

(Para - 1 to 10)

HELD:- Court exercised equitable jurisdiction.
Set
aside
orders
dated
24.09.1992
and
15.07.1981. Protected petitioners' possession
and directed fresh allotment proceedings to
include eligible contesting respondents. (Para -
19)

Petition disposed of. (E-7)

List of Cases cited:

C.C.R.A.S. & anr. Vs Bikartan Das & ors., 2023
INSC 733

(Delivered by Hon'ble Saurabh Shyam
Shamshery, J.)

1. In the present case, a piece of land
was being part of two resolutions for
allotment of Patta under the provisions of
U.P.
Zamindari
Abolition
and
Land
Reforms Act, 1950, which has created a
controversy and matter is reached upto this
Court.

2. First resolution was adopted on
11.09.1972 and number of beneficiaries
were
58.
It
was
challenged
before
Additional Collector, however, rejected by
order
dated
10.09.1973.
Surprisingly,
despite this writ petition is pending for last
more than three decades, copy of same was
not placed on record.

3. Said order was challenged before
Commissioner and a reference dated
10.06.1974 was prepared, however, copy of
same is also not on record. Said reference
was accepted by Board of Revenue vide
order dated 29.04.1977 and revision was
dismissed. Copy of order was placed on
record by way of filing a supplementary
affidavit and for reference the same is
reproduced hereinafter:

"This is a revision petition
against the order dated 10.09.1973 passed
by Additional Collector, Saharanpur, in a
case u/s 198(2) of the U.P. Z.A. & L.R. Act.

2. No objection has been filed
against
the
recommendation
of
the
Additional Commissioner. I have gone
through the record. Agreeing with the
recommendation
of
the
Additional
Commissioner, I dismiss the revision."

4. During pendency of above revision,
said land was again become a subject
matter of a subsequent resolution dated
28.12.1975 and number of beneficiaries
were 90. Said resolution was challenged,
however,
except
that
some
of
the
beneficiaries were removed from list on the
ground that they were not qualified, rest of
resolution was upheld vide order dated
30.03.1978. Surprisingly, earlier resolution
dated 11.09.1972 as well as proceedings
11 All. Beer Singh Vs. Board of Revenue Alld. & Ors.
207
referred above which reached till Board of
Revenue, were not even referred in said
order.

5.
Above
referred
order
dated
30.03.1978 was challenged and a reference
dated 15.07.1981 was made. Relevant part
of the order dated 30.03.1978 and reference
dated 15.07.1981 is reproduced hereinafter:

Relevant part of order dated
30.03.1978:

"लेखपाल के बयान तथा तहसील
आख्या से यह ससद्ध होती है कक प्रस्ताव
ददनांक 28-12-1975 की समस्त कायटवाही
ननयमानुसार की गई है िो लेखपाल के
बयान तथा अन्य साक्ष्यों से यह भी ससद्ध
होता है कक प्रस्ताव के समय वववाददत भ सम
खाली थी और गाूँव सभा सम्पवि थी
जिसको आबन्टन करने का प रा अचधकारी
भ ० प्र० स० को था ।

वादी पक्ष के ववद्वान असभभाषक
ने मेरा ध्यान लेखपाल के बयान की ओर
आकवषटत ककया तथा तकट ककया कक इस
प्रस्ताव द्वारा कुछ ऐसे व्यजक्तयों को
आबन्टन ककया गया है िो पात्र व्यजक्त
नहीं थे और उनमें से कुछ के पास 12
एकड़ से भी अचधक भ सम है। लेखपाल के
बयान से यह ससद्ध होता है कक महावीर
तथा सतबबरम के वपता के पास 12 एकड़
से अचधक भ सम है और सब इकट्ठे ही रहते
है। इसके अनतररक्त दयाराम, रघुवीर तथा
समवा पुत्रगण नरपत तथा कलीराम तथा
बीर के पास आबन्टन से प वट 55 बीघा
पुख्ता से अचधक भ सम थी। और वतटमान
वववाददत प्रस्ताव द्वारा उनके पक्ष में 2-2
बीघा पुख्ता भ सम का आबन्टन और कर
ददया गया है जिस कारण से उन सबके
पास 31/8 एकड़ से अचधक भ सम हो गई है
िो कान न के अन्तटगत नहीं हो सकती है।

िहाूँ तक शेष व्यंजक्तयों के
आबन्टन का प्रश्न है लेखपाल के बयान से
सस.. कक वे भ समहीन तथा खेनतहर मिद र
है और उनके पास ककसी के पास भी अलाट
शुदा भ सम को सजम्मसलत करते हुये 31/8
एकड से अचधक भ सम नहीं है। इस कारण
शेष व्यजक्तयों के पक्ष में ककया गया
प्रस्ताव ननयसमत है और उसमें ककसी प्रकार
कौदहत की आवश्यकता मै नहीं समझता ह ूँ
।

अतः ववपक्षीगण ससधा पुत्र बारु,
सरथा, रघुवीर तथा दया राम पुत्रगण नरपत
कलोराम पुत्र बारू तथा महावीर एवं
सतबबरम पुत्रगण रतन के पक्ष में ककया
गया प्रस्ताव ननरस्त ककया िाता है
वववाददत भ सम खसरा नम्बर 344/1-4-0,
341/0-16-0, 341/2--0, 4/0-9-15, 1-0/0-9-10,
341/1-4-0, 292/0-12-0, 293/0-13-0, 294/012, 290/0-2-0, 292/0-2-0, 136/2-6-7, 300/20-0 तथा 300/2-0-0 ग्राम सभा में नीदहत
की िाती है। ववपक्षीगण को तुरन्त
वववाददत भ सम से बेदखल ककया िावे तथा
रािस्व असभलेख तदानुसार दुरूस्त ककये
िावे। भ ०प्र०सं० वववाददत भ सम का कब्िा
ववपक्षीगण से प्राप्त करें।
208 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

आदेश की प्रनत तहसीलदार/भ ०
प्र०स० को सुिनाथट तथा आवश्यक कायटवाही
हेतु भेिी िावे।"

Relevant part of order dated
15.07.1981:

"माननीय
रािस्व
पररषद
के
आदेश ददनाूँक 29-4-77 को देखने से स्पष्ट
है कक आबन्टन ददनाूँक 11-9-72 को वैध
माना गया है अतः िब तक रािस्व पररषद
की
इस
फाइजन्डंग
को
ककसी
उच्ि
न्यायालय से रद्द नहीं ककया िाता तब
तक यह नहीं समझा िा सकता कक वह
आबन्टन अवैध है। 11-9-72 का आबन्टन
िब तक वैध है तब तक गाूँव सभा को
दुबारा इस भ सम का आबन्टन करने का
कोई अचधकार नहीं है।

उपरोक्त
पररजस्थनत
में
अवर
न्यायालय का आदेश गलत है ।

ननगरानी स्वीकार ककये िाने की
संस्तुनत माननीय रािस्व पररषद से की
िाती है। तथा अवर न्यायालय का आदेश
ननरस्त ककया िाता है ।

असन्तुष्ट पक्ष अपनी आपवि यदद
कोई हो 30 ददन के अन्दर प्रस्तुत कर
सकता है ।"

6. Thereafter, Board of Revenue
accepted the reference and revision was
allowed vide order dated 24.04.1992 and
relevant
part
thereof
is
mentioned
hereinafter:

"5. स्पष्ट है कक िो आबन्टन
जिला वगैरह को 11-9-72 को हुआ था वह
अन्ततोगत्वा रािस्व पररषद द्वारा 24-7-77
को बैध माना गया, िब इसे िुनौती नहीं दी
िा सकती और एक बार आबजन्टत भ सम
दोबारा ककसी को आबजन्टत नहीं की िा
सकती। जिला के सलए यह िरूरी नहीं था
कक सभी आबजन्टयों को फरीक बनाये क्यों
कक सन् 75 के प्रस्ताव में और भी भ सम
ननदहत है वह केवल उसी भ सम के आबन्टन
को िुनौती दे सका था िो सन् 72 के
प्रस्ताव में थी और उन व्यजक्तयों को
फरीक बनाया गया। य़दद कुछ भ खण्ड
आबादी हो गये हैं तो आबादी की भ सम से
ककसी को बेदखल नहीं ककया िा सकता।
िहाूँ तक िारागाह सुरक्षक्षत करने का प्रश्न
है एक बार आबजन्टत भ सम को दोबारा
अोाबन्टन करने का अचधकार गाूँव सभा
को नहीं था। इन पररजस्थनतयों में बाद का
आबन्टन अवैध है।

ववपाक्षीगण के ववद्वान अचधवक्ता
ने यह भी तकट प्रस्तुत ककया कक
आबजन्टगण भ समदहन हररिन है अतः उन्हें
कब्जे के आधार पर धारा 122 बी (4-एफ)
के अन्तगटत असंक्रमणीय भ समधर के
अचधकार समलने िादहए, मै इस तकट से
सहमत नहीं ह ूँ। िो भ सम एक बार
आबाजन्टत कर दी गयी है उस पर यदद
ककसी का कब्िा भी है और पट्टे के आधार
पर वह काबबि है तो उस कब्िे के आधार
पर ककसी को अचधकार नहीं समल सकते।
अपर जिलाचधकारी के ननणटय के अवलोकन
से स्पष्ट है कक उन्होंने 11-9-72 के प्रस्ताव
11 All. Beer Singh Vs. Board of Revenue Alld. & Ors.
209
को प्रस्ताव ही नहीं माना क्यों कक न
इसका अमलदरामद ककया गया और न
कोई पट्टा सलया गया। यह वैधाननक
जस्थनत उचित नहीं है। िब प्रस्ताव को ही
िुनौती दे दी गयी तो िब तक मुकदमा
अंनतम रूप से ननणीत न हो प ट्टा करने
का प्रश्न ही नहीं था। अपर जिलाचधकारी
को रािस्व पररषद का आदेश हो िाने के
बाद 11-9-72 के प्रस्ताव में कोई भी कमी
ननकालने का कोई अचधकार ही नहीं था।
वह मामला अब अविम हो िुका है। यह भी
तकट प्रस्तुत ककया गया कक 28-12-75 के
आबजन्टन के समय िब एक बार प्रस्ताव
हो गया तो यदद कब्िा नहीं ददलाया गया
और मुकदमा िलने लगा तो उससे भ सम
खाली है या नहीं इससे कोई अन्तर नहीं
पड़ेगा ।

7. इन पररजस्थनतयों में अपर
आयुक्त की सुस्तुनत प णटतया स्वीकार करने
योग्य है अतः मैं यह सन्दभट स्वीकार करके
ननगरानी
स्वीकार
करते
हुए
अपर
जिलाचधकारी का आदेश इस सीमा तक
संशोचधत करता ह ूँ कक 11-9-72 के प्रस्ताव
द्वारा िो भ सम जिला तथा अन्य व्यजक्तयों
को आबजन्टत की गयी है उस भ सम का
आबन्टन दोबारा करना अवैध है और वह
आबन्टन ननरस्त ककया िाता है।"

7. Aforesaid orders are challenged
before this Court at the behest of
petitioners, i.e., as many as 64 beneficiaries
of subsequent resolution.

8. This Court vide order dated
03.02.1993 directed that writ petitioners
will not be dispossessed from land in
dispute in pursuance of impugned order.

9. Sri Ajay Kumar Sharma, learned
counsel for petitioners submitted that
earlier resolution dated 11.09.1972 was
void ab initio since it was neither approved
nor it was acted upon, whereas proceedings
arising out of subsequent resolution dated
28.12.1975 were not only with prior
approval but it was acted upon so much as
that allotted land was handed over to its
beneficiaries, i.e., atleast to the petitioners.

10. Learned counsel for petitioners
further referred few paragraphs of counter
affidavit filed by State-Respondents that it
was admitted that a meeting of Land
Management Committee of concerned
Gaon Sabha was conducted on 11.09.1972
but it was not approved. Learned counsel
also submitted that equity is in favour of
petitioners as their possession is protected
since 1975 and even by this Court for last
more than three decades.

11. Per contra, Sri Rajeev Sisodia as
well as Sri Girish Chandra Shukla,
Advocates
for
contesting-respondents,
submitted that once the earlier resolution
dated 11.09.1972 was got confirmed upto
Board of Revenue, Gaon Sabha was not
empowered to put the said land for the
purpose of allotment of Patta again and he
referred relevant paragraphs of impugned
orders dated 15.07.1981 and 24.09.1992,
which were passed on same reasons. They
further submitted that question of equity
will rise only if subsequent resolution dated
28.12.1975 was legally adopted, however,
the facts as referred above and noted in
impugned orders, the said exercise of
allotment was void ab initio.
210 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

12. Sri Abhishek Kumar Srivastava,
learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel
for State-Respondents, has not denied that
resolution dated 11.09.1972 was adopted
but it was not approved in accordance with
law, however, he also referred later part of
counter affidavit that legal position, so far
as no subsequent resolution could be
adopted of the same land when earlier
resolution was specifically stated and that it
was rightly upheld by impugned orders and
that in subsequent part of counter affidavit
the averments of writ petition were
specifically denied.

13. Heard learned counsel for parties
and perused the material available on
record.

14. The Court has heard this matter in
writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the
Constitution which undisputedly not only a
Court of law but it is a Court having
extraordinary, equitable and discretionary
jurisdiction also.

15. As referred above, a challenged to
earlier resolution dated 11.09.1972 got
failed and it was upheld up to Board of
Revenue by order dated 29.04.1977 which
has attained finality, therefore, without
taking note of it a subsequent resolution for
allotment of land and consequent granting
possession on face of it was erroneous.

16. The question, whether earlier
resolution was ever approved, could not be
looked into without challenge to it.
However even in such circumstances a fact
remained
undisputed
that
subsequent
resolution was admittedly approved and
possession
was
handed
over
to
its
beneficiaries atleast to the petitioners and is
being protected for last three and half
decades on basis of an interim order of this
Court, whereas admittedly no possession
was handed over to beneficiaries in
pursuance of earlier resolution.

17. In these circumstances this Court
has to balance equity between petitioners'
possession which is protected for last many
decades without any dispute as they are
eligible persons for allotment though
procedure might not be proper and the
earlier resolution which was upheld upto
the Board of Revenue but no possession
was handed over to its beneficiaries i.e.
admittedly not acted upon. Therefore, the
Court is of considered opinion that at this
stage, in case petitioners are dispossessed
they will be more prejudiced and will suffer
irreparable loss in comparison to the
beneficiaries of earlier resolution, who
were never put into possession of allotted
land.

18. At this stage, the Court refers
relevant part of a judgment passed by
Supreme Court in the case of Central
Council for Research in Ayurvedic
Sciences and another vs. Bikartan Das
and others, 2023 INSC 733 that in
extraordinary circumstances the High Court
under writ jurisdiction may exercise
equitable jurisdiction in the interest of
justice would be relevant and it's para 51
is, therefore, reproduced hereinafter:

"51.
The
second
cardinal
principle of exercise of extraordinary
jurisdiction under Article 226 of the
Constitution is that in a given case, even if
some action or order challenged in the writ
petition is found to be illegal and invalid,
the High Court while exercising its
extraordinary jurisdiction thereunder can
refuse to upset it with a view to doing
substantial justice between the parties.
Article 226 of the Constitution grants an
11 All. Suraj Singh @ Suraj Dev Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
211
extraordinary
remedy,
which
is
essentially
discretionary,
although
founded on legal injury. It is perfectly
open for the writ court, exercising this
flexible power to pass such orders as
public interest dictates & equity projects.
The
legal
formulations
cannot
be
enforced divorced from the realities of
the fact situation of the case. While
administering law, it is to be tempered
with equity and if the equitable situation
demands after setting right the legal
formulations, not to take it to the logical
end, the High Court would be failing in
its duty if it does not notice equitable
consideration and mould the final order
in
exercise
of
its
extraordinary
jurisdiction. Any other approach would
render the High Court a normal court of
appeal which it is not."

 (Emphasis supplied)

19.
In
aforesaid
circumstances,
equitable jurisdiction of this Court is being
exercised and possession of petitioners only
is protected. Impugned judgment and
orders dated 24.09.1992 and 15.07.1981 are
interfered and accordingly set aside.
However, it is directed that State will
conduct a fresh allotment proceedings and
will include contesting-respondents, if still
they are eligible for allotment under
relevant provisions, including others also.
Said exercise will be concluded within a
period of six months from today, if there is
no legal impediment.

20.
With
aforesaid
observations/
directions, this writ petition is disposed of.
----------
(2024) 11 ILRA 211
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 19.11.2024

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE CHANDRA KUMAR RAI, J.

Writ- B No. 3319 of 2022

Suraj Singh @ Suraj Dev ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Bhupendra Kumar Yadav, Dinesh Rai,
Manvendra Nath Singh

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Shri Krishan Yadav, Vishnu Murti
Tripathi

(A) Land Law - Consolidation of Holdings
- Orders regarding Chak allotment under
U.P.C.H. Act under challenge - Uttar
Pradesh Consolidation of Holdings Act,
1953 - Section 19 - Conditions for
Consolidation Scheme, Section 21(2) -
Appeals , Section 48 - Revisional Powers
of Deputy Director - Compact area -
Source of irrigation - Rectangulation -
Chak Objection - Chak Appeal - Chak
revision - Tenure holder be allotted Chak
as far as possible on his original largest
holding
considering
the
source
of
irrigation of tenure holder copuled with
the process of rectangulation of Chak of
tenure holder.(Para -11)

Petitioner, holder of Chak Nos. 799 and 800 -
challenged allocation of chaks made under
consolidation proceedings - objection was
partially allowed by Consolidation Officer -
subsequent appeal and revision were dismissed
- sought allotment on his original holdings (536
and 539) - claiming that current allocation (496
and others) was unfit for cultivation due to its Lshape - which was denied by authorities. (Para
2, 4)

HELD: - Petitioner's allotment of Chak to his
source of irrigation was adjusted on plot no.
496. No illegality in allotment of the Chak to the
petitioner by Consolidation Officer. Consolidation
Officer dismissed an appeal to allocate the Chak
to
other
holdings.
Deputy
Director
of
Consolidation also dismissed a revision under