- (1.) R. P. Mishra, J. Heard Sri Sankatha Rai and Mr. M. P. Singh learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. V. K. Singh, learned counsel for the respondent Gaon Sabha.
(2.) THE Deputy Director of Consolida tion vide his order dated 17-1-1994 has reviewed his earlier order dated 4-12-1993. Under the provisions of the U. P. Con solidation of Holdings Act, l953, the Deputy Director of Consolidation has got the power of the review. However, in sup port of his findings, he has heavily relied upon the report of the Consolidation Of ficer, dated 12-1-1994. However, the aforesaid report given by the Consolida tion Officer is not at all material for decid ing the aforesaid controversy. In the proceedings initiated under Rule 109-A of the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Rules, 1953, the Deputy Direc tor of Consolidation has got limited power. If once he comes to the conclusion that there is a valid order then the only jurisdiction with him is to implement the same and the possession be delivered ac cordingly. Considering the facts and cir cumstances of the case, the writ petition is allowed. The order dated 17- 1-1994, passed by the Deputy Director of Con solidation (Annexure-1 to the writ peti tion) is quashed and the earlier order dated 4-12-1993, passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation shall be en forced in accordance with the provisions of Rule 109-A of the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Rules, 1953 after affording op portunity to the concerned parties. Petition allowed. .;