R.M. Sahai, J. - (1.) The circumstances giving rise to this petition directed against an order dated 7-12-1972 passed under Section 48 (3) of the Consolidation of Holdings Act by the Deputy Director are these; while dispute in respect of title between the parties in respect of land in dispute as a result of claim made by one Smt. Doli had not been finalised proposal for allotment of chaks under Section 19 of the Act was made. The petitioners claimed chak near plots Nos. 338, 339, 340 and 341. The appellate authority held however he does deserve small valuation near his house on plot No. 339 which I shall allot him. In revision, the petitioner was granted further rating, and, the Deputy Director while disposing of four revisions, including the one filed by opposite party held in his order dated 21-10-1971 that plots Nos. 338, 339, 340 were adjacent to the petitioners abadi but they were not allotted any chak on it. On the other hand Bajrangi opposite party was allotted chak of much more valuation near abadi than he originally had. He accordingly directed adjustment. The petitioners were allotted chak at plot Nos. 339 and 340. This order became final. On 30-12-1971 after the finalisation of allotment of chaks on 31-10-1971, the dispute raised by Smt. Doli was finally rejected by the Deputy Director. The result was that the petitioners and the opposite parties continued to be co-tenants of ⅓ each. After dismissal of Smt. Dolis claim tile opposite party appear to have moved consolidation authorities once again to reopen the matter which had become final on the pretext that during pendency of Smt. Dolis claim the names of petitioner and opposite parties having been maintained jointly on chak No. 187 it may be partitioned. On petitioners behalf proposal for any reference was objected. In the alternative it was suggested that the changes made by Deputy Director may be adhered to. The Consolidation Officer submitted a report on 22-11-1972. He proposed that plot Nos. 339 and 340 may be given to opposite parties as originally proposed by the A. C. O. under Section 19 of the Act. This was accepted by the Deputy Director by the impugned order.
(2.) From the report of the Consolidation Officer it is clear that chak No. 187 although held jointly was formed at three places and separate chaks were allotted to co-tenants according to their l/3rd share. Its total valuation was 100.42. Out of it 33.42 was given to opposite party No. 6 and chak was formed on plot Nos. 281, 282 and 283. The Consolidation Officer suggested its retention. So far the other chak of 187 which by the order of Deputy Director dated 21-10-1971 was formed at plots Nos. 339 and 340 and allotted to the petitioners the Consolidation Officer suggested in his report to be given to Bajrangi and Roop Narain opposite parties Nos. 4 and 5. The report is silent about the necessity of alteration. The Deputy Director while accepting the report has failed to give any reason. The effect of the report was that the order dated 31-10-1971 passed by Deputy Director stood reviewed. This could not be done. There is no provision in the Act or rules permitting review. What could not be done directly could not be achieved indirectly. The rejection of Smt. Dolis claim did not bring about any change or modification in the allotment of chaks as finally determined. There was no order of any competent Court or authority which needed implementation. The occasion to submit any reference under Section 48 (3) of the Act was therefore nonexistent.
(3.) The result is that the petition succeeds and is allowed. The order dated 7-12-1972 passed by the Deputy Director Consolidation under Section 48 (3) is quashed. The parties shall bear their own costs. Petition allowed.;