Hon'ble Pradeep Kumar Singh Baghel, J.

The petitioner has preferred this writ petition for issuance of a writ of certiorari to quash the order passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Mainpuri, the first respondent, dated 29th December, 2017, whereby he has allowed the revision of the second respondent.

Briefly stated the facts are that the petitioner is Chak Holder No. 176 and in the revenue records Gata Nos. 473, 175, 675, 683, 672, and 487, total area 2.264 hectare, are recorded in his name. It is stated that during the consolidation scheme the Assistant Consolidation Officer, after inspection and following the procedure prescribed under the Uttar Pradesh Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (for short "the Act") and the Uttar Pradesh Consolidation of Holdings Rules, 1954 (for short, "the Rules") has proposed four chaks to the petitioner, first chak in Gata No. 475, second chak in Gata No. 640, third chak in Gata No. 660 and fourth chak in Gata No. 700, total area 1.796 hectare. The second respondent, who is Chak Holder No. 196, was proposed three chaks by the Assistant Consolidation Officer.

The second respondent was not satisfied with the proposed chaks, hence the matter was heard by the Consolidation Officer and an order was passed on 07th February, 2014 carving out four chaks to the petitioner and three chaks to the second respondent.

Aggrieved by the said order of the Consolidation Officer the second respondent preferred an appeal under Section 11 of the Act, which was allowed by the Settlement Officer Consolidation vide order dated 08th May, 2014. However, the second respondent was not satisfied with the order of the Settlement Officer Consolidation and he preferred a revision under Section 48 (1) of the Act. The Deputy Director of Consolidation by the impugned order dated 29th December, 2017 has allowed the revision in one line order. The relevant part of the order of the Deputy Director of Consolidation reads as under:

^^---xzke ds pd Hkwfp= ds voyksdu ,oa vfHkys[kksa ds ijh{k.k djus ds mijkUr bl fu"d"kZ ij igqaprk gwa fd fuxjkuhdrkZ dks cUnkscLr vf/kdkjh pdcUnh Lrj ij r`rh; pd xkVk la[;k&179] 180] 190 vkfn ij pd Áfn"V fd;k x;k] mldks lekIr djds fuxjkuhdrkZ ds ewytksr ds xkVk la[;k&641] 642] 672] 673 vkfn ds uEcjksa ij r`rh; pd Áfn"V fd;s tkus dh ekax mfpr izrhr gksrh gS] mDr rF;ksa ds vk/kkj ij fuxjkuh Lohdkj fd;s tkus ;ksX; gSA**

From the order of the Deputy Director of Consolidation it is clear that he was not sure in giving the direction about the case of the second respondent as he has used the words ^^ekax mfpr izrhr gksrh gSA**

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for the first respondent and learned counsel appearing for the second respondent.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the order of the Deputy Director of Consolidation is arbitrary and illegal as it does not disclose any reason. He further submits that the Assistant Consolidation Officer after the spot inspection has rightly proposed four chaks to the petitioner, however, the Deputy Director of Consolidation has interfered with it in the revisional jurisdiction without any justifiable reason that too without assigning any reason.

Learned counsel for the respondents has tried to defend the order on the ground that the order of the Deputy Director of Consolidation is equitable and has been passed on right consideration.

I have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

The experience shows that some of the Deputy Directors of Consolidation of the State while exercising their power under Section 48 of the Act are passing similar orders without assigning any reason. No doubt, Section 48 of the Act is a revisional power but by the amendment by U.P. Act No. 3 of 2000 (w.e.f. 10th November, 1980) Explanation (3) has been added to it. Explanation (3) of Section 48 of the Act empowers the Deputy Director of Consolidation to examine the correctness, legality o