The main legal point established in the judgment is that the revisional power under Section 48 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 is limited to ascertaining whether the subordinate courts have exceeded their jurisdiction and does not allow the revisional authority to act as an original court or substitute its own findings.

Sudhir Agarwal, J.: -

1. Heard learned counsels for parties and perused the record.

2. It is contended that Deputy Director of Consolidation (hereinafter referred to as "DDC") has interfered with the orders passed by the Consolidation Officer and Settlement Officer (Consolidation) in respect to allotment of chak in utter violation of guidelines laid down in Section 19 of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as "Act, 1953") and also without finding any flaw with the orders passed by authorities below by recording his view.

3. Learned counsel for petitioner very vehemently argued and raised the issue of jurisdiction of DDC in interfering with the concurrent decisions of the authorities below. Thus, it would be appropriate first to examine the scope of revisional power, to be exercised by DDC, under Section 48 of Act, 1953.

4. The Scheme of the statute contemplates a tentative plan, inviting objection from stake-holder, i.e. tenure holder, and, after considering the same, finalization of plan, i.e., allotment of Chaks. Thereagainst appellate power has been conferred upon SOC under Section 21(2) of Act 1953. The power which is exercised by DDC, is termed "Revision and reference" under Section 48 of Act, 1953.

5. The original Section 48, as enacted, initially read as under:

"48. Revision.- Director of Consolidation may call for the record of any case if the Officer (other than the Arbitrator) by whom the case was decided appears to have exercised a jurisdiction not vested in him by law or to have failed to exercise jurisdiction so vested, or to have acted in the exercise of his jurisdiction illegally or with substantial irregularity and may pass such orders in the case as it thinks fit."

6. It was amended by substitution by U.P. Act No. 24 of 1956 as under:

"48. Powers of Director of Consolidation to call for records and to revise orders.- The Director of Consolidation may call for the record of any case or proceeding if the Officer (other than the Arbitrator) by whom the case was decided or proceeding taken appears to have exercised jurisdiction not vested in him by law or to have failed to exercise jurisdiction so vested, or to have acted in the exercise of his jurisdiction illegally or with substantial irregularity and may pass such orders in the case as it thinks fit." (amendment in bold)

7. Within a short period, it was again amended by U.P. Amendment Act No.38 of 1958 as under:

"48. Revision.- The Director of Consolidation may call for the record of any case decided or proceedings taken, where he is of opinion that a Deputy Director, Consolidation has -

(i) exercised jurisdiction not vested in him in law, or

(ii) failed to exercise jurisdiction vested in him, or

(iii) acted in the exercise of his jurisdiction illegally or with substantial irregularity, and as a result of which, substantial injustice appears to have been caused to a tenure-holder and he may4, after affording reasonable opportunity of hearing to the parties concerned, pass such order in the case or proceeding as he thinks fit." (amendment in bold)

8. Section 48 as noted above came on statute book by way of Section 39 of U.P. (Amendment) Act No. VIII of 1963. Major amendment came to be made by U.P. Act No. 20 of 1982 inasmuch as, in sub section(1) the words "other than an interlocutory order" were inserted w.e.f. 10.11.1980. An Explanation was added by Act No. 4 of 1969 with retrospective effect. It was re-numbered as Explanation-(1) by Act No. 20 of 1982 w.e.f. 10.11.1980 and then Explanation(2) was added w.e.f. 10.11.1980.

9. Presently, Section 48 reads as under:

"48. Revision and reference.-(1) The Director of Consolidation may call for and examine the record of any case decided or proceedings taken by any subordinate authority for the purpose of satisfying himself as to the regularity of the proceedings; or as to the correctness, legality or propriety of any order [other than interlocutory order] passed by such authority in the case