Hon’ble Sudhir Agarwal, J.—Heard Sri Rajesh Kumar Srivastava, Advocate holding brief of Sri Sudhanshu Srivastava, learned counsel for petitioner and Sri G.P. Singh, learned counsel for respondents.

2. This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has arisen from the order dated 23.12.1977 passed by Deputy Director Consolidation (hereinafter to be referred as ‘DDC’) partly allowing three revisions by a common order passed under Section 48 of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (hereinafter to be referred as ‘Act, 1953’) making alteration in allotment of chak made by Settlement Officer, Consolidation (hereinafter to be referred as ‘SOC’).

3. Petitioner Bhikhari (now deceased and substituted by legal heirs) claimed to be a chak holder of chak No. 191 while Maharaji (respondent No. 3) (now deceased and substituted by legal heirs) was holder of chak No. 201. Original holding of petitioner’s chak consisted of 20 plots with a total area 2.63 acres. It was splitted in two parts therefore, Assistant Consolidation Officer (hereinafter to be referred as ‘ACO’) allotted a single chak consisting of 21 plots, area 3.3 acres. Respondent 3 filed an objection under Section 20 for change of chak. It was allowed by Consolidation Officer (hereinafter to be referred as ‘CO’) and position of chak was altered vide order dated 25.3.1975. Aggrieved thereto, appeal was filed by petitioner before SOC which was allowed vide order dated 28.4.1975 where against three revisions were filed which have been decided by impugned order passed by DDC.

4. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that DDC while allowing revisions under Section 48 of Act, 1953 by means of impugned judgment has made alterations in chak but no reason has been given as to why order passed by SOC was erroneous, warranting interference under Section 48 and therefore, impugned order passed by SOC is patently without jurisdiction.

5. Learned counsel appearing for contesting respondents submitted that chak of respondent 3 was not properly carved out and allotted, hence DDC has made alterations.

6. The scope of power exercised by DDC under Section 48 precedes the condition that it can interfere with the order passed by SOC or any authority below him, only, if there is any manifest error, jurisdictional or otherwise or great injustice has been done. Scope of revisional power of DDC under Section 48 of Act, 1953 has been examined time and again. 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.

7. 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.”

8. 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.”

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