A.N. Gupta, J. - (1.) Issue notice to opposite parties No. 2 to 5.
(2.) The dispute relates to plot comprised in Khata No. 464 which in the basic year was entered in the name of Smt. Raghuraji and opposite party No. 4. Deo Raji and Jasraji of district Gonda. Objections under Section 12 of the Consolidation of Holdings Act were preferred by Om Prakash, opposite party No. 3 as well as by the petitioners. Consolidation Officer by means of his order dated 8.7.97 dismissed the objection of Om Prakash and allowed the objection of the petitioners. He directed that the name of Santosh Kumar be recorded on half share of the said Khata and the name of Ram Surat Singh and Ram Nayak Singh, petitioners No. 2 and 3 be recorded in respect of other half share. Dissatisfied by this order opposite party No. 2 Mulkraj preferred a revision under Section 48 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act before the Deputy Director of Consolidation without preferring an appeal as provided under Section 11 of the said Act. The Deputy Director of Consolidation has entertained the revision and ordered for issuing notice and has fixed date for hearing of the revision. He has also summoned the concerned file. He has stayed the operation of the order dated 8.7.97 passed by he Consolidation Officer. This writ petition has been preferred against the said order dated 18.11.97, passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation.
(3.) It has been urged by the learned counsel for the petitioners that although language of Section 48 is very wide which empowers the Deputy Director of Consolidation to revise any order and the proceedings taken by any subordinate authority and may call for the record for satisfying as to the regularity of the proceedings or as to the correctness, legality or propriety of any order passed by such authority in the case or proceedings, may, after allowing parties concerned of being heard, make such order in the case or proceedings as he thinks fit but Section 11 of the said act which is applicable to the proceedings under Section 12 provides an appeal against the orders passed by the Consolidation Officer and therefore revision should not have been entertained directly by the Deputy Director of Consolidation. In view of the above, it is directed that the Deputy Director of Consolidation shall not dispose of the said revision preferred by opposite party No. 2 and shall direct him to prefer an appeal under Section 11 of the Consolidation of Holdings Act. Order Accordingly.;