Yatindra Singh, J. - (1.) In proceeding under U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (the Act), part of petitioner's land was reserved for village Abadi. In view of this, the petitioner was allotted two Chaks in allotment of Chak proceeding under the Act. The petitioner filed his objection against the same. This was rejected on 31-7-1992. Petitioner filed an appeal, which was dismissed on the ground that part of his land has been reserved for village Abadi and he could not be given one Chak. The petitioner filed revision against these orders. During pendency of this revision, the petitioner filed an objection under Section 9-B of the Act against the statement of principles reserving his part of holding for village Abadi. This objection was allowed on 30-4-1996. The petitioner filed a copy of this order in his revision and on the basis of the same submitted that now petitioner may be given one Chak as village Abadi is no longer on the original plot of the petitioner. The Deputy Director of Consolidation dismissed the revision of the petitioner and also set aside the order, dated 30-4-1996. Hence, the present writ petition.
(2.) I have heard Sri S.C. Verma and Sri Raj Kishore Yadav, Counsel for the petitioner and Sri N.N. Verma holding brief of Sri V.K. Singh and standing Counsel for the respondents. With the consent of parties this writ petition is disposed of at this stage. The petitioner submits as follows : (i) No appeal or revision was filed against the order, dated 30-4-1996. It was a consent order and the respondent No. 1 could not set it aside while dismissing the revision of the petitioner. (ii) Petitioner had filed, the order, dated 30-4-1996 as evidence in support of his case. No suo moto proceedings were taken by the Deputy Director of Consolidation to set it aside. (iii) No opportunity was given to the petitioner to support the order, dated 30-4-1996. Petitioner has no knowledge that this could be set aside in the revision filed by him against the orders in allotment of Chak proceedings. (iv) In case the petitioner cannot be given this land, the petitioner could be given one Chak at this place, as his irrigation facilities are available at that place.
(3.) I have considered the aforesaid submissions of the petitioner. It is incorrect to say that the Deputy Director of Consolidation can only set aside an order only if any revision is filed. The Deputy Director of Consolidation has suo moto powers and he can exercise his power in case it is deemed necessary. But before exercising suo moto power, he has to give opportunity to the parties concerned. In this case petitioner had no knowledge that the Deputy Director of Consolidation was going to exercise suo moto powers to set aside the order, dated 30-4-1996. In view of this the order, dated 1-9-2001 is quashed. The matter is send back to the Deputy Director of Consolidation for re-decision on merits after hearing the parties concerned. The parties may appear before the Deputy Director of Consolidation on 22-4-2002. With these observations the writ petition is allowed.;