- (1.) MATTER is taken in the revised cause list. None appeared on behalf of the respondents. Heard Shri Pankaj Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned State Counsel and perused the record. Facts in brief of the present case are that the controversy involved in the present case relates to Khata No.385 recorded in the name of father of the petitioner. Thereafter, in respect of the land in question certain dispute has arisen and the matter came up for consideration before the Consolidation Officer who has passed an order dated 3.1.1991 (Annexure No.2).
(2.) AGGRIEVED by the said order, an appeal bearing Appeal No.310/970 has been filed, allowed by order dated 27.5.1993 (Annexure No.3). Lastly, the matter came up for consideration before the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Hardoi in revision bearing Revision No.836/? 776/ 709/ 682/690/507 under Section 48 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, dismissed by judgment and order dated 29.10.1999 (Annexure No.1) and the matter was remanded to the Consolidation Officer to decide the same. On 16.12.1999, this Court passed an interim order, on reproduction reads as under:- "Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner on stay application. Till the next date of listing operation of the order dated 27.5.1993 contained in Annexure No.3 shall remain stayed." Shri Pankaj Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there is no justification or reason on the part of the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Hardoi to remand the matter to Consolidation Officer when all the material and document are available before him, so he should decide the matter himself in view of the provisions as provided under Section 48 of the U.P. Consolidation and Holdings Act. Hence, the impugned order dated 29.10.1999 is illegal and arbitrary in nature, liable to be set aside. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record.
(3.) THE first question which arises for consideration is to whether under Section 48 of the Act, the Deputy Director of Consolidation in exercise of his powers of revision, can upset the findings recorded by the Consolidation Officer and the Settlement Officer. Section 48 of the Act was amended by amendment Act 8 of 1963. Before its amendment Section 48 read as under: "48. The Director of Consolidation may call for the record of any case if the officer (other than the Arbitrator) by whom the case was decided appears to have exercised a jurisdiction not vested in him by law or to have failed to exercise jurisdiction so vested, or to have acted in the exercise of his jurisdiction illegally or with substantial irregularity and may pass such orders in the case, as it thinks fit." ;