The main legal point established in the judgment is the limitation on the revisional power of the Deputy Director of Consolidation under Section 48 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953, and the specific grounds on which the revisional authority can interfere with subordinate authorities' decisions.

Sudhir Agarwal, J.

1. Heard Sri Ashish Gupta, learned counsel for petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for respondents no. 1 to 3. Perused the office report dated 21.11.2016. Service upon respondents no. 4 and 5 is deemed sufficient. None appeared on their behalf though the case is called in revised.

2. The writ petition is directed against the order dated 18.02.1983 (Annexure-3 to the writ petition) passed by Deputy Director of Consolidation, Sultanpur Camp Agra (hereinafter referred to as the "DDC").

3. It is contended that DDC by means of impugned order has made alteration in allotment and constitution of chak made by Consolidation Officer (hereinafter referred to as the "CO") only for convenience of revisionist without recording any finding that CO in drawing chaks has committed any legal infirmity or there was some factual error which renders the findings of CO to be perverse or illegal or there is some gross injustice. Therefore, DDC in exercising revisional jurisdiction could not have modified the chaks carved out by CO only by holding that there is another view possible and that suits to revisionists.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently argued and raised the issue of jurisdiction of DDC in interfering with the concurrent decisions of authorities below. Thus, it would be appropriate first to examine the scope of revisional power to be exercised by DDC, under Section 48 of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act, 1953").

5. The Scheme of 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.

6. 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."

7. 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)

8. 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)

9. 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 i