JUDGMENT

Chandra Kumar Rai, J.

Heard Mr. Sunil Kumar, Counsel for the petitioners, learned Standing Counsel for State-respondents and Mr. Nikhil Kumar, Counsel for respondent Nos.2 and 3.

2. The instant writ petition has been filed for quashing the revisional order dated 14.11.2022 passed by respondent No.1/Deputy Director of Consolidation in Revision No.3132 of 2022 (computerized case No.D202215060003132) (Karmi Devi v. Phool Chand and others) Under Section 48 of U.P.C.H. Act, 1953.

3. Brief facts of the case are that in the case/objection filed by contesting respondent under Section 9 A (2) of U.P.C.H. Act, along with prayer for Section 5 of Limitation Act as the objection was filed after 10 years from the notification issued under Section 9 of U.P.C.H. Act in respect to plot No.349 area 0.061 Kadi of Khata No.48 situated at Mauja-Haraiya, Tappa-Athaisi, Pargana-Nizamabad, Tehsil-Sadar, District-Azamgarh. The Consolidation Officer has decided the objection on the basis of compromise vide order dated 26.04.1997. After 10 years of passing of the order by Consolidation Officer dated 26.04.1997, contesting respondents initiated proceeding under Section 42 -A of U.P.C.H. Act on 24.02.2007 and the Consolidation Officer has passed the order in aforementioned proceeding on 01.09.2008 for correcting the record. Contesting respondent No.2 filed Revision No. 3132 of 2022 computerized case No.D202215060003132 under Section 48 of U.P.C.H. Act against the order dated 26.04.1997 and 01.09.2008 along with prayer for delay condonation application. Revisonal Court vide order dated 14.11.2022 has set aside the orders dated 26.04.1997 and 01.09.2008, hence this petition.

4. Counsel for the petitioners submitted that title objection filed by the petitioners has been decided on the basis of compromise by the Consolidation Officer in the year 1997, which has been set aside in the revision filed by contesting respondents arbitrarily. He further submitted that contesting respondents has filed a suit under Section 42 A of U.P.C.H. Act in the year 2007 and Consolidation Officer has also passed the order on 01.09.2008 for correcting the revenue records on the basis of order dated 26.04.1997 passed by the Consolidation Officer. Contesting respondent No.2 filed revision in the year 2022, in which orders dated 26.04.1997 and 01.09.2008 have been set aside. He further submitted that proper opportunity of hearing has not been afforded to the petitioners by the revisional Court, as such revisional order is liable to be set aside and the matter should be sent back to the revisional court to decide the revision afresh after affording proper opportunity of hearing to the petitioners. Counsel for the petitioners placed provisions of Section 48 of U.P.C.H. Act, which is as follows:

5. The perusal of Section 48 of U.P.C.H. Act is necessary in order to consider the scope of Section-48 of U.P.C.H. Act, which is as under:

"Section 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 proceedings, 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 subordinate to the Director of Conso