JUDGMENT :

Hon'ble Chandra Kumar Rai, J.-Heard Sri Ram Chandra Solanki, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for respondent Nos. 1 to 3 & 5 and Sri Raj Kamal Singh holding brief of Sri Akhilendra Yadav, learned counsel for respondent No. 4. With the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, writ petition is being disposed of finally at the admission stage.

2. Brief facts of the case are that petitioner is chak holder No. 114 and respondent No. 4 is chak holder No. 54. Original holdings of petitioner are plot Nos. 193, 194, 195, 196, 197, 198, 1999, 200, 201, 202 total area 0.276 hectare and the petitioner was proposed chak by Asstt. Consolidation Officer on plot Nos. 195, 197, 201, 202 total area 0.257 hectare which was according to the Act and Rules framed for allotment of chak. Against the proposal of Asstt. Consolidation Officer, respondent No. 4 filed belated chak objection which was decided in her favour and chak of the petitioner was disturbed without giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, the chak which was allotted to the petitioner was on the bank of the river and was also 'uran', accordingly, petitioner challenged the order of Consolidation Officer dated 23.6.2021 before the Settlement Officer Consolidation in appeal under Section 21(2) of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act with the prayer to set aside the order dated 23.6.2021 and stage of Asstt. Consolidation Officer be maintained, in appeal prayer for condonation of delay was also made, accordingly, Settlement Officer Consolidation after condoning the delay in filing appeal, allowed the appeal on merit setting aside the order dated 23.6.2021 and the stage of Asstt. Consolidation Officer was maintained. Against the Appellate order dated 22.10.2021, Revision under Section 48 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act was filed by respondent No. 4 and the Revisional Court by impugned order dated 31.3.2022 allowed the revision filed by respondent No. 4 by giving reason that demand of respondent No. 4 appears to be correct, hence, this writ petition on behalf of the petitioner.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that proposal made in favour of petitioner by Asstt. Consolidation Officer was on his original holding but the same was illegally set aside by Consolidation Officer while deciding the objection, the order of Consolidation Officer was rightly set aside in appeal and the stage of Asstt. Consolidation Officer was maintained but the revisional Court finally allowed the revision filed by the respondent No. 4 by a cryptic order saying only that demand of respondent No. 4 appears to be correct but there is no consideration of the petitioner's case, no reason has been assigned in revisional order and there is no proper compliance of Section 48 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act by revisional Court, hence, impugned revisional order be set aside and order of appellate court dated 22.10.2021 be restored.

4. For the appreciations of the argument of learned counsel for the petitioner, perusal of Section 48 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act will be necessary.

5. Section 48 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act reads as follows :

''48. Revision and reference.-(1) The Director of Consolidation may call for and examine the record of any case decided or proceedings taken by any subordinate authority for the purpose of satisfying himself as to the regularity of the proceedings; or as to the correctness, legality or propriety of any order [other than an interlocutory order] passed by such authority in the case or p0roceedings, may, after allowing the parties concerned an opportunity of being heard, make such order in the case or proceedings as he thinks fit.

(2) Powers under sub-section (1) may be exercised by the Director of Consolidation also on a reference under sub-section (3).

(3) Any authority sub-ordinate to the Director of Consolidation may, after allowing the parties concerned an opportunity of being heard