- (1.) LIST is revised. None appeared for the respondent. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner.
(2.) BY means of this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioner prays for issuance of a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorariquashing the order dated 6-4-1990 passed by Respondent No. 1 allowing the Revision filed by the contesting respondents. The relevant facts of the case giving rise to the present petition, in brief, are that in the basic year, the land in dispute, i. e. ,plots No. 1102/1 and 1102/2 of village Bihuni Kalan, Tehsil Maudaha, District Hamipur was recorded in the name of the petitioner. Objections were filed by the father of Respondents No. 2 to 5 and Respondents No. 6 and 7. They have claimed that they were in adverse possession of the land in dispute for more than the prescribed period, as such they have perfected sirdarirights over the land in dispute. The name of the petitioner was, therefore, liable to be expunged. The objection filed by the pleaded respondents was contested by the petitioner, who has contended that the contesting respondents were never in possession over the land in dispute. The entries made in the revenue papers were illegal and were not made after following the procedure prescribed under the law. On the basis of illegal entries, they cannot claim any right in the land in dispute. Parties produced evidenced in support of their cases, oral and documentary. the Consolation Officer after hearing the parties and after perusing the material on the record, dismissed the objections of the respondents by his judgment and order dated 21-5-1985. Challenging the validity of the said order, the contesting respondents filed an appeal before the Settlement Officer, Consolidation. The Settlement Officer, Consolidation also affirmed the findings recorded by the Consolidation Officer and dismissed the appeal by his judgment and order dated 11-4-1986. The contesting respondents, thereafter, challenged the validity of the order passed by the Settlement Officer, Consolidation by filing a revision under Section 48 of the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, for short 'the Act', before the Deputy Director of Consolidation. The Deputy Director of Consolidation reversed the findings recorded by the two authorities below, substituted his own findings for the findings recorded by them and allowed the revision by his judgment and order dated 6-4-1990. Hence the present petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently urged that the order passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation is wholly illegal and without jurisdiction, it is beyond the scope of Section 48 of the Act. It was urged that the Deputy Director of Consolidation had no jurisdiction to reappraise the evidence on the record and to substitute his own findings for the findings recorded by the authorities below without holding the findings that the findings recorded by them were either illegal, incorrect, improper or perverse. No such findings have been recorded and the orders passed by the authorities below have illegally been set aside. Therefore, the order passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation is liable to be quashed and the writ petition deserves to be allowed.
(3.) I have considered the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the petitioner and also perused the record. Section 48 of the Act provides as under:- "48. Revision and reference.- (1) The Director of Consolidation may call for and examine the record of any case decided or proceedings taken by any subordinate authority for the purpose of satisfying himself as to the regularity of the proceedings; or as to the correctness, legality or propriety of any order other than an interlocutor order passed by such authority in the case or proceedings, may, after allowing the parties concerned an opportunity of being heard, make such order in the case or proceedings as he thinks fit. (2) Powers under sub-section (1) may be 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 allowing the parties concerned an opportunity of being heard, refer the record of any case or proceedings to the Director of Consolidation for action under sub-section (1 ). Explanation.- (1) For the purposes of this section Settlement Officers, Consolidation, Consolidation Officers, Assistant Consolidation Officers Consolidator and Consolidation Lekhpals shall be subordinate to the Director of Consolidation. Explanation.- (2) For the purpose of this Section the expression 'interlocutory order' in relation to a case or proceeding, means such order deciding any matter arising in such case or proceeding or collateral thereto as does not have the effect to finally disposing of such case or proceedings. " A reading of the aforesaid Section clearly reveals that the Deputy Director of Consolidation may call for and examine the record of any case decided or proceedings taken by any subordinate authority for the purposes of satisfying himself as to the legality, correctness or propriety of the proceedings or of any order (other than any interlocutory order) passed by such authority in the case or proceedings may, after allowing the parties concerned an opportunity of being heard, make such order in the case or proceedings as he may thinks fit. In the present case, it is evident from the order passed the Deputy Director of Consolidation that he has nowhere held that the findings recorded by the authorities below were either illegal, incorrect or improper. He has reappraised the evidence as if he was acting as the Consolidation Officer or the Settlement Officer, Consolidation and without reversing the findings recorded by the authorities below in accordance with law, substituted his own findings for the findings recorded by them, which was legally not permissible.;