ORDER S.D. Agarwala, J. - This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution arising out of proceedings of allotment of chaks. 2. The Assistant Consolidation Officer made proposals and no objections were filed by the petitioners against the said proposals. Respondent 2, Javendra Singh, only filed an objection pleading that he had been allotted chaks at two places and prayed that he should be given only one chak instead. 3. The Consolidation Officer rejected the objection of respondent 2. Against the order of the Consolidation Officer, an appeal was filed by respondent 2 under S. 21 (2), U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The appeal was allowed by the Settlement Officer (Consolidation). Against the order of the Settlement Officer (Consolidation), two revisions were filed before the Deputy Director of Consolidation. Revision No. 2117 of 1977 was filed by Smt. Baljit Kaur, the petitioner, and Revision No. 1596 of 1977 was filed by Jasvendra Singh, respondent 2. Both the revisions were allowed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Lakhimpur Kheri, by Judgment dated 28th January, 1978. The judgment dated 28th January, 1978, has been challenged by means of the present writ petition. 4. I have heard the loarned counsel for the parties. The learned counsel for the petitioners has raised three contentions before me. His first contention is that the Settlement Officer (Consolidation) as well as the Deputy Director of Consolidation have acted illegally and with material irregularity in exercise of their jurisdiction in deciding the case against the petitioners without making local inspection, which was mandatory and, as such, the orders and vitiated in law. The second submission of the learned counsel is that even if the making of the local inspection by the appellate court and the revisional court was not mandatory, but in the circumstances of the instant case, local inspection should have been made before modifying the entire scheme. The third submission of the learned counsel is that the entire scheme of allotment has been modified and no reasons have been given in the said order and, as such, the order of the Deputy Director of Consolidation is vitiated in law. 5. It is admitted in the counter affidavit, in para. 14, that the Consolidation Officer had accepted the proposals submitted by the Assistant Consolidation Officer after making a local inspection. 5. It is admitted in the counter affidavit, in para. 14, that the Consolidation Officer had accepted the proposals submitted by the Assistant Consolidation Officer after making a local inspection. It is further admitted by the parties that no local inspection had been made, either by the Settlement Officer (Consolidation) or by the Deputy director of Consolidation before reversing the order passed by the Consolidation Officer and modifying the scheme. 6. In support oi the first. contention, the learned counsel for the petitioners has relied upon S. 21 (3) of the Act as well as on the decision of Satya Narain v. Ram Manohar (1977) 3 All LR 507. Section 21 (3), in the original form, was as under : "(3). The Consolidation Officer and the Settlement Officer, Consolidation, shall before deciding objection, or the appeal, as the case may be, make a local inspection of the village after giving due notice of there intention to do so to the parties concerned and the Land Management Committee." 7. The original sub-cl. (3) was substituted by U. P. Act. No. 38 of 1958. The substituted sub-cl. (3) was under : - "(3) Before deciding the objections, the Consolidation Officer shall, and before deciding the appeal, the Settlement Officer, Consolidation, may, where he considers it necessary so to do, make a local inspection of the plots in dispute after notice to parties concerned and the Consolidation Committee." It is significant to note that the Legislature instead of using the word 'shall' has used the word 'may' for the local inspection by the Settlement Officer (Consolidation). The obvious intention, therefore, of the Legislature was that the local inspection by the Settlement Officer (Consolidation), which was mandatory earlier, ceased to be mandatory by the substituted clause. 8. Thereafter, by U. P. Act No. 8 of 1963, again, sub-cl. (3) was substituted, which is in the following form : - "(3) The Consolidation Officer shall, before deciding the objections, and the Settlement Officer, Consolidation, may, before deciding an appeal, make local inspection of the plots in dispute after notice to the parties concerned and the Consolidation Committee." 9. By the last amendment, only the words "where he considers it necessary so to do" were omitted, but the word 'may' was maintained. From a reading of the above sub-cl. By the last amendment, only the words "where he considers it necessary so to do" were omitted, but the word 'may' was maintained. From a reading of the above sub-cl. (3), in my opinion, it is clear that the word 'may' cannot be used as the word 'shall'. The Local inspection has been made mandatory for the Consolidation Officer, but the matter has been left to the discretion of the Settlement Officer (Consolidation) and, therefore, the word 'may' has been used for the Settlement Officer (Consolidation). It cannot, therefore, be held that it is mandatory for the Settlement Officer (Consolidation) to make a local inspection. 10. In Bajai v. The Dy. Director of Consolidation 1970 All WR (HC) 305, this question came up for consideration before Justice M. H. Beg, (as he then was). Hon. M. H. Beg, J. opined as under "It is, therefore, evident that such matters can only be initially decided after a local inspection by the Consolidation Officer. In appeal, the Settlement Officer, and, in revision, the Dy. Director may or may not be obliged, depending upon the facts of the case, to make the local inspection. But, where the Dy. Director himself declares that local inspection was necessary for - the Settlement Officer before making a re-allotment, it is very difficult to contend that the same obligation did not rest upon the Dy. Director. The powers of the Settlement Officer and the Dy. Director are intended for removing their difficulties. They should be freely used where a failure to exercise the power may result in injustice. It may afford a ground for interference if this power is not used where it ought to have been exercised." 11. I fully agree with the interpretation made by Hon'ble M. H. Beg, J. In my opinion, therefore, it was not mandatory for the Settlement Officer (Consolidation) or the Deputy Director of Consolidation to make a local inspection before passing the impugned orders. The power of local inspection was vested both in the appellate as well as in the revisional authorities and that had to be exercised after considering the facts and circumstances of the case. As stated above, the learned counsel for the petitioners has relied upon the case of Satya Narain v. Ram Manohar (1977) 3 All LR 507 (Supra). The power of local inspection was vested both in the appellate as well as in the revisional authorities and that had to be exercised after considering the facts and circumstances of the case. As stated above, the learned counsel for the petitioners has relied upon the case of Satya Narain v. Ram Manohar (1977) 3 All LR 507 (Supra). In this case, Hon. D. N. Jha, J. has not held that it is mandatory for the Settlement Officer (Consolidation) and the Deputy Director of Consolidation to make a local inspection in every case. Hon'ble Jha, J. had, on consideration of the facts of that case, held that the Director of Consolidation and the Settlement Officer (Consolidation) should have made a local inspection before upsetting the order. This case, therefore, in my opinion, does not support the petitioners' argument and is based on its own facts. The first submission, therefore, made by the learned counsel for the petitioners, in my opinion, is not well founded. 12. In regard to the second submission, it is not necessary for me to give my opinion as to whether it is necessary for the Settlement Officer (Consolidation) or the Deputy Director of Consolidation to make a local inspection. That would depend upon the facts and circumstances of the case and is a matter within the discretion of the authorities concerned. Since I am remanding the matter to the Deputy Director of Consolidation, it will be open to the petitioners to apply for a local inspection before the Deputy Director of Consolidation and if the petitioners so apply, the Deputy Director of Consolidation shall consider the matter and exercise his power of local inspection in accordance with law. 13. In regard to the third submission the submission made by the learned counsel is well founded. I have examined the judgment of the Deputy Director of Consolidation and find that the Deputy Director of Consolidation has modified the scheme without giving any reason in the said order. The only reason given appears to be that since respondent 2 is a small farmer, therefore, it was necessary that the scheme be modified. This by itself was no reason for modifying the scheme as to why a particular plot be taken out from the chak of one person and be given to another. The only reason given appears to be that since respondent 2 is a small farmer, therefore, it was necessary that the scheme be modified. This by itself was no reason for modifying the scheme as to why a particular plot be taken out from the chak of one person and be given to another. The modification of the scheme affects the vital rights of the parties and, it is, therefore, necessary that before the modification of the entire scheme is made, reasons be given as to why the scheme should be modified. In the absence of any reasons, the order is clearly vitiated in law. 14. In the result, the petition succeeds and is allowed. The order of the Deputy Director of Consolidation dated 28th January, 1978, Is quashed. The matter is remanded to the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Lakhimpur Kheri, for decision afresh in the light of the observations made above and expeditiously. In the circumstances of the case the parties are directed to bear their own costs. It is further directed that till the revisions are finally disposed of by the Deputy Director of Consolidation, the parties in possession shall remain in possession of their respective plots and the status quo shall be maintained as it exists today.