B. Dikshit, J. - (1.) This writ petition is directed against an order passed by Deputy Director of Consolidation dated 20th March, 1975, whereby he allowed tire revision of opposite party Ram Daras and modified the Chak of petitioner. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has argued that the Deputy Director of Consolidation exceeded his power under Section 48 of the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act (in short Act) in deciding the revision without having record of Settlement Officer Consolidation. He also argued that there was no order dated 15th June, 1972 passed by Settlement Officer Consolidation against which revision was filed and, therefore, the revision filed against, a non-existing order was liable to be rejected Learned Counsel for the petitioner has further argued that revision was belated and Deputy Director of Consolidation has decided the same without condoning delay in filing of revision. He has also submitted that litigation between petitioner and Ram Daras in respect of Chak matter became final when the appeal of Ram Daras was decided by Settlement Officer Consolidation by order dated 31-3-1972. Learned Counsel for Ram Daras opposed the petition. He submitted that the record of Settlement Officer Consolidation was before the Deputy Director of Consolidation when he passed the order. He submitted that such a question can not be allowed to be raised for the first time before this Court in a writ petition and if the record was not there then the petitioner should have taken an objection to that effect before Deputy Director of Consolidation who could have summoned the record and disposed of the revision on merit. He further argued that this Court may not interfere as substantial justice has been done between the parties. Learned Counsel for the contesting opposite party also submitted that it is not a fit case for sending back for decision afresh as order was passed mote than twenty years back, Lastly, learned Counsel for opposite party also submitted that the delay in filing the revision will be presumed condoned as revision has been decided on merit.
(2.) It has been stated in para 6 of the writ petition that there was no order of the Settlement Officer Consolidation dated 15-6-1972 against which Ram Daras filed the revision. In paras 10 (ii) and (v) of the writ petition it has been averred that the Deputy Director of Consolidation did not summon any record of Consolidation Officer or Settlement Officer Consolidation and no record was produced before Deputy Director of Consolidation containing alleged order of Settlement Officer Consolidation dated 15-6-1972. These averments have been denied in paras 8 and 14 of the counter-affidavit filed by Ram Daras but it is not specific denial that the record of Settlement Officer Consolidation was produced before the Deputy Director of Consolidation containing said order of Settlement Officer Consolidation dated 15-6-1972 which was subject-matter of revision. In absence of rebuttal, averments made in said paragraphs of writ petition are to be taken as true and, therefore, it is held that the Deputy Director of Consolidation proceeded with the hearing of revision and decided the case without having the record of Settlement Officer Consolidation in respect of latter's decision dated 15-6-1972.
(3.) The power under Section 48 of the Act is a revisional power under which the Deputy Director of Consolidation could examine the record of any case decided on proceeding taken by any subordinate authority for purpose of satisfying himself as to the regularity of the proceeding or correctness, legality or propriety of any order. The legislative mandate by enacting said provision is that the examination of record by the Director of Consolidation was must before he could have interfered in order passed by Settlement Officer Consolidation. As the record of Settlement Officer Consolidation giving rise to the order dated 15-6-1972 was not before the Deputy Director of Consolidation, the Deputy Director of Consolidation could not have heard the revision and, therefore, the impugned order passed by him is bad in law.;