JUDGMENT :

[Anjani Kumar Mishra, J.]

1. Heard learned counsel for the parties on the recall application.

2. The order dated 29.1.2020 is recalled and I have heard counsel for the parties on the merits of the writ petition and perused the record.

3. The writ petition arises out of proceedings for allotment of chaks and seeks a writ of certiorari for quashing the order dated 20.9.1997 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation whereby the chak of the petitioner has been disturbed.

4. The contention of Shri Rahul Mishra, counsel for the petitioners is that the Deputy Director of Consolidation has himself modified the chak of the petitioners at the revisional stage. He submits that in case there was an illegality in the order passed by the Settlement Officer Consolidation, the Deputy Director of Consolidation could only have remanded the matter back to the appellate authority for reconsideration. The Deputy Director of Consolidation was not competent to substitute his findings as the revisional Court is a Court of limited jurisdiction and does not have power akin to a Court of appeal.

5. In support of his contention he has placed reliance upon the following two decisions.

6. Karan Singh and others v. Deputy Director of Consolidation, Aligarh and others, 2003 (1) AWC 630, wherein, in paragraph 7, it has been observed as follows :

''7. ....... In case the Deputy Director of consolidation was of the opinion that the findings recorded were bad in law, he could set aside the same after reappraisal of the evidence and could remand the case for decision afresh. .....''

7. The Court further went on to hold that the order impugned before it suffered from a misreading of the evidence on record.

8. The other judgement relied upon is the judgment dated 25.11.2016 passed in Writ B No. 54395 of 2009 Ram Nivas and others v. Deputy Director of Consolidation and others. Paragraph 23 of this judgment reads as follows :

''23. In view of above exposition of law and considering the facts and circumstances of the case, in my view the order impugned in this writ petition passed by DDC cannot sustain being beyond the scope of Section 48 of Act, 1953. In the present case, revisional authority has neither examined regularity of the proceedings conducted by subordinate authority nor has examined correctness and propriety of such order and has passed its order, which has the effect of upsetting the order passed by lower authority without pointing out any illegality or inaccuracy or incorrectness therein.''

9. In the case at hand, the order impugned, is dated 20.9.1997. Section 48 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act has undergone various amendments. The last amendment was by means of U.P. Act No. 3 of 2002, with effect from 10.11.1980. By this amendment Explanation [3] has been added to the said section. The said Explanation [3] reads as follows :

''Explanation [3].-The power under this section to examine the correctness, legality or propriety of any order includes the power to examine any findings, whether of fact or law, recorded by any subordinate authority, and also includes the power to reappreciate any oral or documentary evidence.''

10. From a bare reading of Explanation [3], incorporated in the year 2002 with effect from 10.11.1980, it is clear that it makes the revisional Court the last Court of fact.

11. The judgment in Karan Singh (supra) relied upon by counsel for the petitioners has not noticed or considered Explanation [3] to Section 48.

12. The judgment of the case of Ram Nivas has noticed the amendment in Section 48 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act but has gone on to hold that the power of the revisional Court is limited. This view has been taken relying upon the decision of the Apex Court in Jagdamba Prasad v. Kripa Shanker, 2014 (5) SCC 707, wherein it appears that the revisional authority had admitted new facts either in the form of document or otherwise to come to a conclusion i.e. it had permitted and relied upon addit