Judgment K.N. Misra, J. 1. THIS petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is directed against the orders dated 12th January, 1977 and 8th July, 1977 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation, opposite party no. 1, in proceedings under Section 48, sub-clause (3), of the U. P. C. H. Act, hereinafter referred to as the Act. 2. BRIEFLY stated the facts are that a chak road was provided on plot nos. 525/0. 02, 527/0. 02, 507/0. 8, 509/0. 01 and 502/0. 01. This Chak road was provided in between the chaks of several tenure holders. Towards east of the said chak road the chak of petitioner no. 2, chak holder no. 118, was situated and towards west of it the chak of petitioner no. 1 was situated. The tenure holders were put into possession over their respective allotted chak land in the unit on 3rd March, 1970 and since then they were using the chak road in question for reaching their respective allotted chaks. Petitioners nos. 1 and 2 were also using the said chak road for reaching their chaks and they have been using it for taking their bullocks and bullock-carts etc. from the abadi to their respective chaks. No objection was raised against the carvation of the said chak road in. proceedings under Section 20 of the Act. It appears that opposite parties nos. 2 to 8, who had helped the consolidation officials during the intensive family planning drive by providing some sterilisation cases, applied to the Consolidation Officer on 16th November, 1976 for converting the aforesaid chak road into a nali. The Consolidation Officer called for a report from the Assistant Consolidation Officer vide his order dated 16th November, 1976 and on the same day the Assistant Consolidation Officer submitted his report mentioning therein that the applicants Udit Narain and others have prayed that the chak road which exists on plots nos. 525 etc. be converted into a nali. No further comment was made in the matter as to why the chak road should be converted into a nali and whether it will be appropriate and desirable to convert the said chak road into a nali or not. 525 etc. be converted into a nali. No further comment was made in the matter as to why the chak road should be converted into a nali and whether it will be appropriate and desirable to convert the said chak road into a nali or not. The report of the Assistant Consolidation Officer is contained in Annexure 2 and from it does not appear that he had heard the petitioners or other tenure holders between whose chaks the said chak road was situated and was used by them as such. The Consolidation Officer on that very day, i.e. 16th November, 1976, submitted the papers to the Settlement Officer (Consolidati6n) for necessary action mentioning therein that approval be accorded for converting the chak road into nali. He also mentioned therein that the applicants had helped in the family planning drive. His report is contained in Annexure 3. He had also not given any notice to the affected tenure-holders nor he had given them any opportunity of hearing. He had also not mentioned as to why the chak road should be converted into a nali. The Deputy Director of Consolidation vide his order dated 12th January, 1977 approved the proposed conversion of chak road into a nali. The petitioners alongwith thirty other tenure-holders filed an application on 15th Feb, 1977 before the Deputy Director of Consolidation for recalling the aforesaid ex-parte order dated 12th January, 1977 and prayed that the case be decided after spot inspection and hearing. This application was signed by the Up Pradhan of the Gaon Sabha and four other members of the Gaon Sabha had also signed it. The Deputy Director of Consolidation vide order dated 8th July, 1977 rejected the said application and maintained the order dated 12th January, 1977. The petitioners have challenged the said orders passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation in this writ petition. Learned counsel for the Gaon Sabha, Sri K. B. Garg, raised a preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of the writ petition filed by the petitioners against the impugned orders. He contended that the land in question, which was a chak road, had vested in the Gaon Sabha and as such only the Gaon Sabha could raise an objection against the impugned orders. The petitioners have no locus standi to file writ petition challenging the impugned orders as they cannot claim any subsisting right in the land in question. He contended that the land in question, which was a chak road, had vested in the Gaon Sabha and as such only the Gaon Sabha could raise an objection against the impugned orders. The petitioners have no locus standi to file writ petition challenging the impugned orders as they cannot claim any subsisting right in the land in question. He further contended that the petitioners have not impleaded all other tenure-holders of the village who were using the chak road in question for approaching their respective chaks and as such the writ petition is also bad for non-joinder of necessary parties. I do not find any merit in these submissions. 3. IT is not disputed that the chak road was provided in between the chaks of petitioners. This chak road was used by the petitioners for carrying their bullocks and bullock-carts etc. to their chak land. This chak road was also used for the said purpose by other tenure-holders whose chaks were situated on both the sides of the chak road in question ever since March 1970. They are certainly affected by the impugned orders converting the chak road into a nali. The petitioners have been materially prejudiced by the impugned orders as they have been deprived by the impugned orders the facility of chak road which they have been enjoying ever since allotment of chaks to tenure-holders. They are thus interested persons and being aggrieved by the orders they are entitled to seek quashing of those orders by this petition. 4. LEARNED counsel for the Gaon Sabha placed reliance upon a decision in writ petition no. 2192 of 1974, Vasudeo Singh v. State of U. P. decided on 10th March, 1980, and contended that in view of the decision recorded in the said petition the petitioners cannot maintain the writ petition against the impugned orders. I have gone through the order passed in the said writ petition and I am of the opinion that the said case is clearly distinguishable. In the aforesaid writ petition the involved land was reserved for abadi purposes. It was subsequently allotted to the opposite parties. The petitioners, whose house was situate in front of the said land, which was reserved for extension of abadi, challenged the said order claiming easementary right in the said land and contended that it should not have been allotted to the opposite parties. It was subsequently allotted to the opposite parties. The petitioners, whose house was situate in front of the said land, which was reserved for extension of abadi, challenged the said order claiming easementary right in the said land and contended that it should not have been allotted to the opposite parties. By the aforesaid order R. M. Sahai, J. on these facts held that since the land, which was reserved for abadi purposes, had vested in the Gaon Sabha hence the Gaon Sabha alone could be the person aggrieved and the petitioner who claimed easementary rights could not file the writ petition and for determination of those rights he could approach the appropriate authority. In the present case the chak road in question was provided for the benefit of the concerned tenure holders including the petitioners whose chaks were situated by the side of the chak road. It is not disputed that the petitioners were not using the chak road in question for the purposes of carrying their bullocks and bullock-carts etc. to their chak land. They would now be deprived of 'that facility and as such they are aggrieved by the impugned orders and can certainly maintain the writ petition The writ petition cannot be said to be not maintainable merely on the ground that the other tenure-holders, who have been using the chak road in question have not been impleaded as party in the writ petition. The other tenure-holders cannot be said to be necessary parties to the writ petition. The order which will be I passed in the writ petition will enure to the benefit of those tenure-holders also, who have been using the chak road in question in case the impugned orders are found to be unjust and improper and are not maintained. The right of the petitioners to challenge the impunged orders cannot be defeated merely because the other tenure-holders, who have been using the chak road in question, have not come forward to challenge the impunged orders. I, therefore, do not find that the writ petition suffers from any defect of non-joinder of parties. 5. The right of the petitioners to challenge the impunged orders cannot be defeated merely because the other tenure-holders, who have been using the chak road in question, have not come forward to challenge the impunged orders. I, therefore, do not find that the writ petition suffers from any defect of non-joinder of parties. 5. LEARNED counsel for the petitioners argued that none of the consolidation authorities gave any opportunity of hearing to the petitioners and they were not heard by the Deputy Director of Consolidation who passed the impugned order directing conversion of the chak road into a nali for the benefit of some individual tenure-holders at their instance. He further contended that the Deputy Director of Consolidation had no jurisdiction under Section 48, sub-clause (3), of the Act to direct conversion of chak road into a nali at the instance of opposite parties nos. 2 to 8 who are said to have helped the consolidation authorities in providing assistance to them in family planning drive. LEARNED counsel further argued that the Deputy Director of Consolidation has wrongly mentioned that the order dated 12th January, 1977 by which chak road has been directed to be converted into a nali has not affected any tenure-holder and that nali has been provided by abolishing the chak road for their benefit. 6. IN reply learned counsel for the opposite parties argued that alteration in chaks can be made at any stage in exercise of powers under Section 48, sub-clause (3) of the Act by the Deputy Director of Consolidation and as such the impugned order passed by him cannot be said to be an order without jurisdiction. He further contended that there was no necessity for affording any opportunity of hearing to the petitioners as the land had vested in the Gaon Sabha and the Gaon Sabha has no grievance against the impugned orders. I have carefully considered the arguments of the learned counsels for the parties and I find much force in the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners. 7. A perusal of the report dated 16th November, 1976 shows that the Consolidation Officer recommended the conversion of chak road into a nali merely on the ground that the applicants opposite parties nos. 2 to 8 had assisted in the family planning drive by providing cases for sterilisation. 7. A perusal of the report dated 16th November, 1976 shows that the Consolidation Officer recommended the conversion of chak road into a nali merely on the ground that the applicants opposite parties nos. 2 to 8 had assisted in the family planning drive by providing cases for sterilisation. He has not mentioned in his report as to why the chak road, which is in use ever since March 1970 by several tenure-holders, should be converted into a nali for the, benefit of those individual applicants. The application was filed by opposite parties nos. 2 to 8 on 16th November, 1976 and on that very date report was called by the Consolidation Officer from the Assitant Consolidation Officer who had submitted his report the same day. No notice was given to the petitioners or other tenure-holders who were to be affected by the abolition of the chak road. The Settlement Officer (Consolidation) also forwarded the report to the Deputy Director of Consolidation without giving any notice to the affected tenure-holders of the proposed conversion of chak road into a nali. The Deputy Director of Consolidation had also not issued any notice to them nor any objection was invited against the conversion of the proposed chak road into a nali. The Deputy Director of Consolidation has approved the report by the impugned order dated 12th January, 1977 by saying that no objection was filed against the proposed reference without scrutinising whether any notice was given to the affected tenure-holders or not. In his subsequent order dated 8th July, 1977 the Deputy Director of Consolidation has observed that by order dated 12th January, 1977 none of the tenure-holders had been affected and a nali has been provided by converting the chak road for their benefit. This observation appears to be altogether erroneous. It cannot be denied that the concerned tenure-holders including the petitioners, who have been using the chak road in question ever since March 1970, would now be adversely affected by its abolition and onverting it into a nali. They would be deprived of a passage to their respective chaks and as such they have been adversely affected by the conversion of the chak road into a nali. 8. THERE is no provision under the Act or the Rules for providing 'nali' to individual tenure-holders. They would be deprived of a passage to their respective chaks and as such they have been adversely affected by the conversion of the chak road into a nali. 8. THERE is no provision under the Act or the Rules for providing 'nali' to individual tenure-holders. 'Nali' or 'gool' could be provided for irrigation purposes at the time of preparation of statements of principals under Section 8-A of the Act for carrying water for irrigation purposes from canal or public tube wells to various places in the consolidation area. Under Section 8-A read with rule 24-A land may be reserved according to the needs of each unit inter alia for the purposes of providing water channels ('gools' or 'nalis') for irrigation purposes. The tenure-holders at that stage could file an objection against the statement of principals under Section 9 of the Act indicating the manner in which their interests are likely to be affected by the statement of principals prepared in accordance with Section 8-A read with rule 24-A. Admittedly no objection was filed by opposite parties nos. 2 to 8 at. that stage claiming that a nali be provided for their benefit. It is also not disputed that when chaks were carved out and the chak road in question was provided for the benefit of concerned chak holders no objection was filed by opposite parties nos. 2 to 8 against it. It is also not disputed that the petitioners as well as other tenure-holders, whose chaks are situated by the side of the chak road in question, have been using it ever since March 1970. The chak road in question, therefore, could not be ordered to be converted into a nali by the Deputy Director of Consolidation in exercise of powers under Section 48, sub-clause (3) as under this provision he is not entitled to unsettle the settled things for the benefit of certain individual tenure-holders and to the detriment of others, for whose benefit chak road in question was carved out. They cannot be deprived of the facility of passage to their respective chaks through the chak road merely to accommodate certain individuals who have assisted the authorities in family planning drive by providing cases for sterilisation. Such is not a ground contemplated for giving relief to individual tenure-holders under the provisions of Section 48, sub-clause (3), of the Act. They cannot be deprived of the facility of passage to their respective chaks through the chak road merely to accommodate certain individuals who have assisted the authorities in family planning drive by providing cases for sterilisation. Such is not a ground contemplated for giving relief to individual tenure-holders under the provisions of Section 48, sub-clause (3), of the Act. The Deputy Director of Consolidation in exercise of powers under Section 48 of the Act, either suo moto or at the instance of the aggrieved person, call for and examine the record of any case decided or proceedings taken by subordinate authority for the purposes of satisfying himself as to the regularity of the proceeding or as to the correctness, legality or propriety of any order passed by such authority in any case or proceedings and pass such orders which he may deem fit after allowing the parties concerned an opportunity of being heard in the matter. Such power can be exercised by the Deputy Director of Consolidation even under Section 48, subclause (3), after allowing the parties concerned an opportunity of being heard. In exercise of powers under Section 48, sub-clause (3) he can pass an appropriate order if the proceedings taken by the subordinate authorities were not regularly conducted or the orders passed in any proceedings taken by the subordinate authorities were incorrect, illegal and improper. 9. IN the present case admittedly no objection was filed at the stage under Section 9 or Section 20 of the Act against the chak road in question nor it can be said that the chak road in question was provided without any justification. Thus in my opinion the Deputy Director of Consolidation has acted illegally and without jurisdiction in passing the impugned order dated 12th January, 1977 directing conversion of the chak road in question into a nali. No such conversion of chak road into a nali could be made u/Sec. 48 (3) of the Act at the instance of few individuals and to the detriment of tenure-holders for whose benefit the chak road was provided especially after the consolidation scheme stood confirmed under Section 23 (3) of the Act. The Deputy Director of Consolidation has thus acted illegally and without jurisdiction in passing the impugned orders, which are unwarranted in law and have resulted in grave miscarriage of justice. 10. The Deputy Director of Consolidation has thus acted illegally and without jurisdiction in passing the impugned orders, which are unwarranted in law and have resulted in grave miscarriage of justice. 10. IN the result the writ petition succeeds and is hereby allowed, the impugned orders dated 12th January, 1977 and 8th July, 1977 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation are hereby quashed and opposite party no. 1 is directed to maintain the chak road which was provided on the plots in question. IN the circumstances of the case the parties shall bear their own costs. Petition allowed.