ORDER K.N. Goyal, J. - Plot No. 358 was recorded in the basic year khetauni in the names of the petitioners as bhumidhars. Opposite party 2 preferred claim on the basis of adverse possession. This was rejected by the Consolidation Officer in 1972. Against that order opposite party 2 filed appeal in 1976 which was rejected as time barred. Aggrieved by that order opposite party 2 preferred a revision before the Deputy Director of Consolidation. 2. During the pendency of this revision an application was made by opposite party 2 praying that the said plot No. 358 and opposite party 2's plot No. 360, which were adjoining plots, may be got measured with reference to the survey map and any error found in the map prepared by the Consolidation staff be corrected. This application was rejected by the Deputy Director of Consolidation on 18-4-1977 on the ground that this plea had never been taken by opposite party 2 in any of the courts below. This order is Annexure-3. He then directed the revision to be posted for hearing on merits. On 7-7-77 the same Deputy Director of Consolidation finally decided the revision, vide his order Annexure-4. In this order he upheld the petitioners' contention that plot No. 358 belonged to them and that opposite party 2 had no title whatsoever in that plot. He, however, added that it appeared to him that the map had not been prepared correctly by the Consolidation staff and that some area of plot 360 had been wrongly included in plot No. 358. With this observation he quashed the orders of the two courts below and directed the Consolidation Officer to treat the opposite party 2's objection as if it were an objection based on an error in the survey map and to decide it accordingly. While issuing this direction the Deputy Director of Consolidation did not even refer to his order dated 18-4-1977 Annexure-3 in which he had taken a contrary view to what he subsequently took on 7-7-77. 3. Aggrieved by the order dated 7-7-77 the petitioners have come to this court under Article 226 of the Constitution. The opposite party 2 has submitted to the order and is thus no longer contending that he has any right in plot No. 358. 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. 5. 3. Aggrieved by the order dated 7-7-77 the petitioners have come to this court under Article 226 of the Constitution. The opposite party 2 has submitted to the order and is thus no longer contending that he has any right in plot No. 358. 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. 5. I will not go to the extent of holding that order dated 18-4-77 could not be reviewed at all by the Deputy Director of Consolidation at the stage of final decision of the revision. The order dated 18-4-77 had been passed at an interlocutory stage, and an interlocutory order is always open to review at the time of final decision vide Debi Prasad v. Khilawan, AIR 1957 All 67 : 1956 All LJ 13. However, the Deputy Director of Consolidation did not even make a mention of his earlier order dated 18-4-77 or try to indicate as to how the view taken by him earlier on 18-4-77 was erroneous and required reconsideration. 6. The two maps have been produced before me and I am unable to discover any discrepancy between the two maps by a mere visual comparison. May be, there does exist some discrepancy, but the order of the Deputy Director of Consolidation does not indicate as to how he was able to discover the discrepancy. He could not reopen the case merely on suspicion or surmises about a possible discrepancy or contradiction between the two maps. 7. The Deputy Director of Consolidation, no doubt did have power to act suo motu under S. 48 for correcting any record. For that purpose he could issue a direction to the Consolidation Officer even while rejecting opposite party 2's claim in regard to plot No. 358. However before he could exercise this power there should be some material before him to enable him prima facie to take the view that the action in fact was required. The impugned order Annexure-4 does not show any such material. As such the order could not be sustained. 8. Thus, the writ petition deserves to be allowed and the order deserves to be quashed. The impugned order Annexure-4 does not show any such material. As such the order could not be sustained. 8. Thus, the writ petition deserves to be allowed and the order deserves to be quashed. But it must be made clear that the mere quashing of the said order would not in any manner prevent the Consolidation Officer or the Settlement Officer Consolidation from making a reference in case they independently come to any conclusion about any error in the map prepared by the Consolidation authorities. Subject to this observation, the writ petition is allowed and the order Annexure-4 is quashed without any order as to costs.