RAJES KUMAR, J. - (1.) HEARD Sri Neeraj Agrawal, learned Counsel for the petition­ers and Sri Ayub Khan, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No. 2.
(2.) LEARNED Counsel for the petition­ers states that the petitioners are the origi­nal holders of Gata No. 108 and in consoli­dation proceeding the land which has been provided to the petitioners was away from the road therefore, the petitioners filed ap­peal before the Settlement Officer Consoli­dation which has been allowed and the claim of the petitioners has been accepted. Being aggrieved by the order, respondent No. 2 filed revision before the Deputy Di­rector of Consolidation, Bulandshahar. The Deputy Director of Consolidation, Buland­shahar by the impugned order disposed of the revision merely on the basis of his spot inspection without considering the case of the petitioners and without seeking objec­tion of the petitioners and without setting aside the finding recorded by the Settle­ment Officer Consolidation. Learned Counsel for the respon­dent states that the order of the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Bulandshahar is based on the spot inspection, therefore, does not require any interference.
(3.) HAVING heard learned Counsel for the parties, I have perused the impugned order. In my opinion, it cannot be sus­tained. It is settled principle of law that while Reversing the order of the Court be­low, the revisional Court should consider the findings recorded by the Court below and set aside the same. Perusal of the impugned order reveals that the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Bulandshahar has passed the order merely on the basis of spot inspection, without considering the case of the petitioners and without consid­ering the findings recorded by the Settle­ment Officer Consolidation. In this view of the matter, the order is vitiated and is liable to be set aside.;