W. Broome, J.

1. This writ petition, filed in 1968, challenges an order passed by the Board of Revenue on 30-11-1967, allowing a revision application against a decision of the Addl. Commr. of Gorakhpur and remanding the case to the Addl. Commr. to be decided afresh.

2. The proceedings had started with an application filed by Rahmat (O.P. 3) in the court of the Addl. Collector of Basti, asking for the correction of a village map Under Section 28 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act, alleging that by mistake plot No. 137 had been wrongly shown in that map as plot No. 62 and vice versa. The application was sent to the S.D.O., Domariaganj for inquiry; and he reported in favour of the Applicant, recommending that correction should be made, as prayed. The Addl. Collector accordingly allowed the application for correction on 30-4-1962. The present Petitioners thereupon appealed to the Addl. Commr. who set aside the order of the Addl. Colleotor on the ground that the map had been prepared during consolidation proceedings and was final and conclusive in view of the provisions of Section 27 of the Consolidation of Holdings Act. The Board of Revenue in revision has held that the stand taken by the Commr. is incorrect and has accordingly set aside his order and remanded the case to him for decision on the merits.

3. The sole point pressed by learned Counsel for the Petitioners is that the impugned order of the Board of Revenue cannot be sustained because it has been passed by only one Member without the concurrence of a second Member. Reliance is placed on the provisions of Rule 190 of the Revenue Court Manual, which runs as follows:

190--Where the Board has distributed its revisional business among the Members, the order of a single Member shall be the order of the Board:

Provided that no decree or order coming up before the Board in revision shall be modified or reversed without the concurrent judgment of two members and in such event the judgment or order shall be signed by both the Members concurring therein.

4. Learned Standing Counsel seeks to meet this argument by suggesting that although Rule 190 was retained in the Revenue Court Manual in the form quoted above up to 16-7-1971, it had in effect become a dead letter when the similar provisions incorporated in Section 8 of the Land Revenue Act were deleted by the Board of Revenue (Regulation of Procedure) Act XXXII of 1966,

5. It is unnecessary, however, for me to enter into this vexed question, for I am satisfied that in the particular circumstances of the present case, no interference by way of writ is called for. In the first place, it is clear that the impugned order of the Board of Revenue does not give any final decision on the rights of the parties, but merely asked the Addl. Commr. to investigate the dispute and to give his decision thereon and furthermore, no useful purpose would be served by asking the Board of Revenue to give a fresh decision, because the orders already passed are clearly justified by the facts of the case. The Addl. Commr. was quite wrong in assuming that a map prepared Under Section 27 of the Consolidation of Holdings Act must necessarily be treated as final and conclusive. Only a correct map properly prepared in accordance with law would be entitled to claim that finality; and if by reason of any mistake on the part of the authorities concerned an incorrect map was drawn up, showing wrong numbers for certain plots, such a map could not be treated as final and conclusive. The order of the Board of Revenue setting aside the Addl. Commr.s decision and asking him to decide the case on the merits was thus eminently reasonable and just.

6. I am satisfied, therefore, that this is not a fit case for the issue of any writ in the Petitioners Favour. The petition is accordingly dismissed, but in the circumstances I make no order as to costs. It is hoped that the record will be transmitted to the Addl. Commr. with the minimum of delay and that the case will be expeditiously disposed of by him.