VIKRAM NATH, J. - (1.) HEARD learned Counsel for the petitioner. No one appeared for the respondents despite the fact that the case has been taken up in the revised call.
(2.) ONE of the arguments advanced is that the Deputy Director of Consolidation has no power of review and, therefore, the impugned order is without jurisdiction. It has been submitted that the Deputy Direc­tor passed the order dated 27.11.1972 with regard to the allocation of chak road so as to resolve the dispute between the Harijans on one side and the Brahmins on the other. The said order was not challenged before any Court. Thereafter, it appears that an­other reference was made and the Deputy Director by the impugned order dated 27.2.1973 modified the chak road settled by him by the previous order. It is well settled that the power of review cannot be as­sumed and has to be specifically conferred by the statute. Under the U.P. Consolida­tion of Holdings Act power of review is not vested in any of the consolidation Courts. Thus, the impugned order of the Deputy Director is liable to be quashed. One more reason for allowing the writ petition is that this Court while entertaining the writ petition in the year 1973 had passed an interim order in the follow­ing terms: - "Issue notice. Until further orders the chak road pro­posed to be constructed in pursu­ance of the impugned order of the Deputy Director of Consolidation shall not be constructed."
(3.) THUS , it appears that for the last 37 years the chak road has been maintained as per the previous order of the Deputy Direc­tor dated 27.11.1972/30.12.1972. It would not be practicable to alter the chak road already existing for the last 37 years, as by now fresh Consolidation, if not already commenced, would commence in the near future. Thus, there would be no justifica­tion for upholding the order of the Deputy Director impugned in this petition.;