Sabhajeet Yadav, J. - (1.) By this petition, the petitioners have challenged the judgment and order dated 8.1.2010 passed by Deputy Director of Consolidation, Azamgarh in Misc. Case No. 62 (Dayanand Rai and others v. State oW.P.and others) under Section 48(3) of U.RC.H. Act, hereinafter referred to as the Act, whereby the provisional consolidation scheme of Village Bibipur, Pargana and Tehsil Nizamabad, District Azamgarh prepared by Assistant Consolidation Officer namely Sri Dal Singar Tiwari has been cancelled and another Assistant Consolidation Officer has been directed to make fresh provisional consolidation scheme of the unit in question and complete the same by 30.6.2010 and Settlement Officer of Consolidation, Azamgarh has also been directed to to take disciplinary action against Sri Dal Singar Tiwari the Assistant Consolidation Officer, Consolitdator and Lekhpal concerned. The aforesaid order has been passed by Deputy Director of Consolidation, Azamgarh purporting to be under Section 48(3) of U.RC.H. Act on the complaints of some chak holders of the village thereupon after making spot inspection and taking statements of villagers and aggrieved persons Settlement Officer Consolidation had recommended for cancellation of provisional consolidation scheme of the unit prepared by Assistant Consolidation Officer.
(2.) Heard Sri R.N. Singh, learned Senior counsel and Sri Sankatha Rai assisted by Sri J.R Singh for the petitioners and Sri Kripa Shanker Singh for the respondent No. 9.
(3.) Sri R.N. Singh, learned senior counsel for the petitioners has contended that the impugned order has been passed by Deputy Director of Consolidation under the garb of the provision of Section 48(3) of U.RC.H. Act, cancelling the provisional consolidation scheme of the village prepared by the Assistant Consolidation Officer under the provisions of Section 19-A of the Act, whereas proper course of the action for aggrieved chak holders against provisional consolidation scheme was to file objection before Consolidation Officer under Section 20(2) of the Act and aggrieved chak holders have further opportunity to file appeal against the decision of Consolidation Officer before the Settlement Officer of Consolidation, under Section 21(2) of the Act, and further remedy of revision before Deputy Director of Consolidation under Section 48(1) of the Act is available to the aggrieved chak holders of the village. In such circumstances it was not open to the Deputy Director of Consolidation to pass impugned order under Section 48(3) of the Act, merely on complaints of some chak holders of the village, by making an enquiry thereon.;