MAQBOOL Vs. D D C

JUDGEMENT

(1.) R. K. Singh, J. Heard Mr. Dinesh Pathak holding brief of Sri S. D. Pathak in support of the writ petitioner and Mr. Tripathi E. G. Bhai for the respondent Nos. 3 and 4 and the learned A. G. A. appearing for the respondent Nos. 1 and 2.

(2.) THE point canvassed by Mr. Pathak, is that the Deputy Director of Consolida tion has no power to review his own order. Referring the orders passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation dated 28-2- 1989 Annexure-11, 11-4-1991, Annexure-III, 6-7-1991, Annexure-lv, 4-3-1993, Annexure-IV, and 8-6- 1994 Annexure-VII Mr. Pathak has successfully made out a point that by the impugned order dated 8-6- 1994 and 4-3-1993 the Deputy Direc tor of Consolidation has reviewed the order dated 11-4-1991 by which order the Deputy Director of Consolidation has res tored the revision petition to its original number and had fixed 6-5-1991 for decid ing the revision petition on merits and had recalled his order dated 28-2-1989 An-nexure-II. Later on 6-7-1991 the revision petitions were dismissed for default due to absence of the revisionists who are respon dent Nos. 3 and 4 before this Court. THE order dismissing the revision in default as well as the order dated 11-4-1991 through which the revision petitions were restored to their original numbers and were fixed for hearing, both the orders were recalled. THE petitioner's objection against the recall order has been rejected by the order Annexure-7. In this way the order recalling the order dated 28-2-'1989 and restoring the revision petition to their original num ber have been set aside and reviewed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation, which power he does not possess as per the Full Bench Decision of this Court reported in the case of Smt. Shivraji & Others v. Deputy Director of Consolidation, Allahabad and others reported in 1997 (88) R. D. Page 562.