RAM KARAN SHUKLA Vs. D D C FATEHPUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) R. H. Zaidi, J. Present petition arises out of proceedings under Sections 20/21 of the U. P. Consolidation of Hold ings Act, for short 'the Act', and is directed against the judgment and order dated 14-12-1993 passed by Respondent No. 1 whereby revision filed by the contesting Respondents No. 2 to 6 was allowed.

(2.) IT appears that the Assistant Con solidation Officer proposed to allot Chak No. 178 to the petitioner and chak No. 694 to the contesting respondents. The respondents filed objection that they were entitled to allotment of chak No. 178. The objection filed by contesting respondents was contested by the petitioner. Parties produced evidence in support of their cases. The Consolidation Officer upheld the claim of the petitioner and rejected the objection filed by the contesting respon dents by his judgment and order dated 27-4-1992. Challenging the validity of the said order, an appeal was filed by the con testing respondents before the Settlement Officer Consolidation. The Settlement Officer Consolidation also dismissed the appeal and confirmed the order passed by the Consolidation Officer by his judgment and order dated 30-6-1992. Thereafter, the contesting respondents filed a revision before the Deputy Director of Consolida tion under Section 48 of the Act. The Deputy Director of Consolidation without recording any findings that the order passed by the Settlement Officer Consolidation was either irregular, im proper, incorrect or illegal, interfered with and set aside the order passed by the Set tlement Officer Consolidation and al lotted the contesting respondents chak No. 178 by impugned order. Hence, the present petition.

(3.) FROM a reading of the aforesaid statutory provision, it is apparent that the Deputy Director of Consolidation may send for the record of any case or proceed ings decided by (he authorities below to satisfy himself as to the regularity of the proceeding, or as to the correctness, legality or propriety of any order other than interlocutory orders passed by the authorities below. It is, thus, apparent that if the proceedings taken or orders are found irregular or the orders passed by the authorities below are found to be illegal, incorrect or improper, the Deputy Direc tor of Consolidation can set aside the said proceedings or order and can allow a revision. In the present case, the requisite findings have not been recorded by the Deputy Director of Consolidation. It has not been held that the proceedings held by the authorities below were in any manner, irregular or the orders passed by them were illegal, incorrect or improper. He has acted wholly illegally and arbitrarily in ob serving that the chaks of the parties were liable to be exchanged. The Deputy Direc tor of Consolidation cannot act as the Con solidation Officer. He cannot substitute his findings for the findings recorded by the authorities below as a matter of course.