Sahgal, J. - (1.) We have heard the learned counsel in this petition. We see no substance in the contention that in exercise of the power conferred by Section 48 of the Consolidation of Holdings Act, the Deputy Director could not set aside confirmation under Section 23 of the Act without there being an objection under Section 20 of the Act. Section 48 empowers the Director of Consolidation not only to revise the orders passed in any case decided but also any action taken by a subordinate authority in any proceedings. Having regard to the language of Section 48 it is obvious that confirmation under Section 23 of the Act would be tantamount to proceedings taken under the Act by an authority subordinate and as such an action would be as much amenable to the jurisdiction under Section 48 as an order passed on an objection filed under Section 20. We are thus satisfied that the impugned order is within the jurisdiction exercisable under Section 48 of the Act. We are also satisfied that the order is eminently just and fair having regard to the circumstances enumerated therein. In these circumstances, we see no reason whatsoever to interfere with the order in exercise of our writ jurisdiction.
(2.) The petition is, therefore, dismissed summarily. Petition dismissed.;