- (1.) R. K. Singh, J. Heard Mr. Dinesh Pathak holding brief of Sri S. D. Pathak in support of the writ petitioner and Mr. Tripathi E. G. Bhai for the respondent Nos. 3 and 4 and the learned A. G. A. appearing for the respondent Nos. 1 and 2.
(2.) THE point canvassed by Mr. Pathak, is that the Deputy Director of Consolida tion has no power to review his own order. Referring the orders passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation dated 28-2- 1989 Annexure-11, 11-4-1991, Annexure-III, 6-7-1991, Annexure-lv, 4-3-1993, Annexure-IV, and 8-6- 1994 Annexure-VII Mr. Pathak has successfully made out a point that by the impugned order dated 8-6- 1994 and 4-3-1993 the Deputy Direc tor of Consolidation has reviewed the order dated 11-4-1991 by which order the Deputy Director of Consolidation has res tored the revision petition to its original number and had fixed 6-5-1991 for decid ing the revision petition on merits and had recalled his order dated 28-2-1989 An-nexure-II. Later on 6-7-1991 the revision petitions were dismissed for default due to absence of the revisionists who are respon dent Nos. 3 and 4 before this Court. THE order dismissing the revision in default as well as the order dated 11-4-1991 through which the revision petitions were restored to their original numbers and were fixed for hearing, both the orders were recalled. THE petitioner's objection against the recall order has been rejected by the order Annexure-7. In this way the order recalling the order dated 28-2-'1989 and restoring the revision petition to their original num ber have been set aside and reviewed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation, which power he does not possess as per the Full Bench Decision of this Court reported in the case of Smt. Shivraji & Others v. Deputy Director of Consolidation, Allahabad and others reported in 1997 (88) R. D. Page 562. Mr. Tripathi B. C. Bhai has. of course, tried to convince that the order dated 28-2-1989 was passed after full hear ing of both the parties, therefore, this order could not be recalled by the order dated 11- 4-1991 Annexure-III but this aspect is not to be considered in this writ petition because the reasons given in the order dated 11-4-1991 were not challenged before this Court at any occasion and that order became final. 11 the revision peti tions were fixed for hearing on 6-7-1991 there was no reason for setting aside the order dated 11-4-1991. Whatever the ad verse order was passed on 6-7-1991 that could have been recalled and the parties should have been heard and the revision petitions should have been decided on merits as per order dated 11-4-1991. The Deputy Director of Consolidation has gone beyond his jurisdiction by reviewing the order dated 11-4-1991 and reviewed his own order which he had passed on the prayer of the writ petitioner after hearing both the parties after assigning good reasons. This Court feels that the Deputy Director of Consolidation had no power to review his own order dated 11-4-1991. Accordingly this writ petition succeeds and is allowed at the admission stage itself. The parties should be heard and the revision petitions should he decided on merits as per order dated 11-4- 1991. Since it is old matter therefore, the Deputy Director of Consolidation -is directed to expedite the matter and try to decide the same within six months. Parties will bear their own costs. Petition allowed. .;