The judgment emphasized the principles of judicial review, including illegality, irrationality, and procedural impropriety, and highlighted the limitations of the court's authority in examining evidence.

Heard Shri Shiv Ram Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioners, learned State Counsel and perused the record.

2. Facts in brief of the present case are that initially for redressal of their grievances parties had approached the Consolidation Officer who decided the matter by order dated 23.1.2006 (Annexure No.2). Aggrieved by the said order, three appeals were filed before the Settlement Officer, Consolidation, Bahraich namely Appeal Nos.567 "Lallu Ram & Ors. vs. Shatrohan & Ors., 574 "Kheduram & Ors. vs. Shatrohan & Ors." and 579 "Ram Vilas vs. Shatrohan & Ors.".

3. In one of the appeal, an application has been moved before the Settlement Officer, Consolidation, Bahraich for summoning the register no.8 in order to compare the Will deed with the sale deed. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and going through the records on the point in question, by means of the order dated 24.8.2006, the Settlement Officer of Consolidation, Bahraich rejected the said application with the following findings:-

@ Hindi @

4. Aggrieved by the said facts, petitioners along with five other persons filed three revisions under Section 48 of the U.P. Consolidation and Holdings, Act. In addition to the one revision filed by the present petitioner, two other revisions were also filed.

5. By means of the order dated 31.10.2006, the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Bahraich dismissed the revisions in question filed by the petitioners with the following observations:-

@ Hindi @

6. In addition to the above observations, while dismissing the revision, the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Bahraich has also given a finding to the effect that against the interlocutory order dated 24.8.2006 passed by Settlement Officer of Consolidation, Bahraich thereby rejecting the application for summoning register no.8, the revisions are not maintainable, thus the finding and reason given by Deputy Director of Consolidation, Bahraich as well as Settlement Officer of Consolidation, Bahraich while rejecting the petitioners' case for summoning register no.8 do not suffer any infirmity or illegality an no interference is needed in the matter in question while exercising the power of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India as in the case of Council of Civil Service Unions (CCSU) v. Minister for the Civil Service [1984] 3 All ER 935, the scope of judicial review has been held by Lord Diplock is stated as under:-

"Judicial Review has I think developed to a stage today when, without reiterating any analysis of the steps by which the development has come about, one can conveniently classify under three heads the grounds on which administrative action is subject to control by judicial review. The first ground I would call 'illegality', the second 'irrationality' and the third 'procedural impropriety'.

By 'illegality' as a ground for judicial review I mean that the decision-maker must understand correctly the law that regulates his decision-making power and must give effect to it. Whether he has or not is par excellence a justiciable question to be decided, in the event of dispute, by those persons, the judges, by whom the judicial power of the State is exercisable.

By 'irrationality' I mean what can by now be succinctly referred to as 'Wednesbury unreasonableness'. It applies to a decision which is so outrageous in its defiance of logic or of accepted moral standards that no sensible person who had applied his mind to the question to be decided could have arrived at it. Whether a decision falls within this category is a question that judges by their training and experience should be well equipped to answer or else there would be something badly wrong with our judicial system...

I have described the third head as 'procedural impropriety' rather than failure to observe basic rules of natural justice or failure to act with procedural fairness towards the person who will be affected by the decision. This is because susceptibility to judicial review u