- (1.) I. M. Quddusi, J. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner Sri B. R. Singh and learned Counsel for the Opposite Party No. 4 Sri Ashok Verma.
(2.) THIS Writ Petition has been filed against the Order dated 25- 9-2000 by Deputy Director of Consolidation, Barabanki in Revision No. 1182 under Section (sic) UPZA & LR Act (Kamla Prasad Singh and others v. Triloki Singh) and Revision No. 1275, Triloki Singh v. Kamla Prasad Singh and others, which were filed against Order of Consolidation Of ficer dated 7-1-2000 which is interlocutory order which is passed in Appeal No. 2024 Triloki Singh v. Kamata Prasad Singh and others, which was area of A. C. O. in cases No. 2822, 2823 and 2824. The Deputy Director of Consolida tion while setting aside the Order passed by Settlement Officer (Consolidation) dated 7-1-2000 and Assistant Consolida tion Officer dated 26-9-1989, directed the Consolidation Officer, Sadar to decide the case on merits after recording evidence and making the concerned file available. He has decided the revisions on merits although the appeal is still pending before the Settlement Officer (Consolidation ). Learned Counsel for the petitioner has urged that as the revisions were filed against interlocutory order of the S. O. C. which the S. O. C. had directed that preliminary objection and amendment ap plication and other points will be decided at the time of final disposal of appeal and it was ordered that the case shall be put up for hearing on 13-1-2000.
(3.) THE contention of learned Counsel for the petitioner is that during the pen dency of appeal the Deputy Director of Consolidation should not have decided the case on merits more so when the revisions were filed against interlocutory order only. Sri Ashok Verma, learned Counsel for respondent No. 4 submitted that the Deputy Director of Consolidation has power even sue motu to decide the matter on merits under Section 48 of the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act and it has discretionary power which cannot be challenged in the Writ Petition. No doubt that the revisional powers of the Deputy Director of Con solidation are discretionary powers which is clear from the perusal of provisions of Section 48 of the Act which are as follows: (1) The Director of Consolidation may call for and examine the record of any case decided or proceedings taken by any subor dinate authority for the purpose of satisfying himself as to the regularity of the proceedings; or as to the correctness, legality of the proceedings and may, after allowing the parties concerned an oppor tunity of being heard, make such order in the case or proceedings as he thinks fit. (2) Powers under sub-section (1) maybe exercised by the Director of Consolidation also on a reference under sub-section (3 ). (3) Any authority subordinate to the Director of Consolidation may, after al lowing the parties concerned an oppor tunity of being heard, refer the record of any case or proceedings to the Director of Consolidation for action under sub-section (1 ).;