R.L. Gulati, J. - (1.) THIS writ petition arises out of certain proceedings under the UP Consolidation of Holdings Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act).
(2.) AS a result of the consolidation operations, the Petitioner was allotted a chak and an approach road to the chak was also provided. The Petitioner felt that the approach road provided was not suitable as he had to cover an unduly long distance in order to reach his chak. He, therefore, applied for the chance of the chak road. The consolidation Officer and the Additional Settlement Officer, Consolidation, after making spot enquiries, found the grievance of the Petitioner to be genuine and recommended a new chak road for the use of the Petitioner. The Deputy Director of Consolidation approved the recommendations of the Consolidation authorities and sanctioned the proposed new chak road. The approval was accorded by the Deputy Director of Consolidation on 31 -10 -1962, in exercise of his powers Under Section 21(6) of the Act. It appears that the Respondents Nos. 4 and 5 were aggrieved by the change in the chak road and they, accordingly, filed an application before the Deputy Director of Consolidation purporting to be Under Section 21(6) of the Act and Under Section 201 of the UP Land Revenue Act for the cancellation of the order of the Deputy Director of Consolidation dated 31 -10 -1962. The Deputy Director of Consolidation then passed another order which is dated 27 -3 -1963, setting aside the earlier order dated 31 -10 -1962. This order purports to have been passed Under Section 21(6) of the Act. The present writ petition is directed against this order of the Deputy Director of Consolidation on the ground that the impugned order is wholly without jurisdiction.
(3.) THE question involved in the writ petition will depend upon the interpretation of Section 21(6) of the Act which is quoted below: 21(6). The Deputy Director of Consolidation may also, where he is of the opinion, either in the course of hearing of an appeal Under Sub -section (5), or otherwise, that material injustice is likely to be caused to a tenure -holder in giving effect to the Statement of Proposals as revised by the Settlement Officer, Consolidation Under Sub -section (4) or as subsequently confirmed by him Under Section 23 as the case may be, but not later than the date of notification issued Under Section 52, for reasons to be recorded in writing, take cognizance of the case as if it were an appeal filed Under Sub -section (5) and decide it accordingly. The aforesaid provision confers power on the Deputy Director of Consolidation to interfere, suo motu, or on an application from an interested person, with the statement of proposals even after they have been confirmed Under Section 23 if, in the opinion of the Deputy Director of Consolidation, such proposals would cause injustice to a tenure holder. He can then, after recording the reasons, take cognizance of the case and decide it treating it to be an appeal Under Sub -section (5) of Section 21.;