The main legal point established in the judgment is the wide powers conferred on the Deputy Director under U.P. C. H. Act Section 48 and the duty to scrutinize the whole case in case of perverse findings or against the weight of evidence, emphasizing the need for valid reasons and evidence to support the reversal of findings by subordinate authorities.

Anil Kumar, J.

Matter is taken up in the revised list.

2. None appeared on behalf of the private respondents.

3. Heard Shri I. D. Shukla, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned State Counsel and perused the record.

4. By means of the present writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the impugned order dated 18.01.1994 passed by opposite party no.1/Deputy Director of Consolidation, Faizabad.

5. Facts in brief of the present case are that at the time of starting of consolidation proceedings, a dispute arisen in respect of the allotment of chak before the Consolidation Officer. By order dated 10.02.1993, the Consolidation Officer has decided the matter.

6. Aggrieved by the said order, the opposite party no.2/Shri Mewa Lal filed an appeal along with an application for condonation of delay. By order dated 25.11.1993, Settlement Officer Consolidation, Faizabad dismissed the appeal, challenged by opposite party no.2 by filing a revision (Revision No.1205) under Section 48 of U.P. C. H. Act before the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Faizabad. By order dated 18.01.1994, the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Faizabad has given a plot Nos.10/2, 11/2, 12, 13, 14 and 24 to the opposite party no.2/Shri Mewa Lal.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner, while challenging the impugned order submits that without giving any finding and only on the statement given by the villager, Deputy Director of Conslidation, Faizabad has passed the impugned order and while doing so, the said authority has not made any spot inspection and thus, committed material illegality in passing the impugned order as a mandatory duty has been casted upon the D.D.C. to make spot inspection prior to deciding a revision under Section 48 of U.P. C. H. Act.

8. It is further submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that effect of the impugned order dated 18.01.1994 passed by opposite party no.1/Deputy Director of Consolidation, Faizabad is that in Chak No.146, he has been allotted the gata nos.13 and 18/2 which are not in front of his abadi/house, as such, the said order passed by the opposite party no.1 is contrary to the principles of natural justice. In support of his argument, he has placed reliance on the judgment given by this Court in the case of Nathunee and others vs. Deputy Director of Consolidation, Ghazipur and another 2005 (98) RD 92 wherein paragraph no.5, relevant portion quoted herein below : -

"The Courts will have to give practical and human approach to the matter. It is not to be reminded that in the villages there are small number of persons who are having big holding and better source of agriculture which consists of modern techniques in various respects. The majority consists of holders of small land and therefore, if they are not allowed chaks considering their convenience that will cause great hardship to them for which, there cannot be any cure after close of consolidation process. In view of aforesaid, this Court need not to issue any strict guideline or cannot lay down a particular procedure/process to handle the situation but of course, this can be observed that it has to be the concern of all the consolidation authorities right from the stage of Assistant Consolidation Officer up to the Deputy Director of Consolidation to keep in mind equitable aspect and comparative hardship besides the norms as provided in section 19 of U.P. C. H. Act as that is to reflect on the future growth of a family. In the past also this Court has opined for giving consideration to the allotment of chak matters in the aforesaid manner but now again time has come to give caution to all the consolidation authorities riot to pass orders in these proceedings, without application of mind, without assigning any proper reason and without considering comparative hardship if is to be faced by the parties on a particular change as that will not be in accordance with the spirit of this process for which, law is made."

9. In addition to the above said facts, l