ORDER K. N. Misra, J. - This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is directed against the order dated 19th August 1980, passed by the Assistant Director of Consolidation, Lucknow, camp at Gorakhpur, in exercise of powers under S. 48, sub-cl. (3) of the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, hereinafter referred to as the Act, long after confirmation of the provisional consolidation scheme and delivery of possession to tenure-holders in the unit over their respective allotted chak land. 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are as follows. The petitioner Udai Bhan Dubey and Ambhimanu Dubey are chak holders of chak No. 4 and respondents Nos. 2 and 3, Param Hans and Ram Briksh, are chak holders of chak No. 36. Sheo Pujan, father of Ram Shanker, respondent No. 4, was chak holder No. 82, situate in village Bimti, Tehsil Bansgaon, district Gorakhpur. Respondent No. 5 Daya Shanker is the tenure-holder in village Atauli and as averred in para 6 of the counter-affidavit he has been allotted a chak in village Atauli, adjacent to chak No. 36. Admittedly, it is not disputed that neither in proceedings under S. 8-A of the Act read with R. 24-A of the Rules framed under the Act nor in proceedings under Sections 9 and 20 of the Act any objection was filed by respondents Nos. 2 to 5 or by any other tenure-holder of the village claiming a chak road or rasta from the village to their respective allotted chaks although objections were filed by them and other tenure-holders for modification in their respective chaks which were ultimately decided in the revision filed by them under S. 48, sub-cl. 11) of the Act by the Deputy Director of Consolidation. It is also not disputed that after final decision recorded in the matter regarding allotment of chaks to various tenure-holders in the unit, possession was delivered to them by the consolidation authorities after confirmation of the provisional consolidation scheme made under S. 23 of the Act and the tenure-holders are in possession over the respective allottee chaks ever since then. The petitioners, who are chak holders of chak No. 4 were allotted a chak near village abadi on plots Nos. 5 M etc. and possession was delivered to them as aforesaid. Likewise Param Hans and Ram Briksh respondents Nos. The petitioners, who are chak holders of chak No. 4 were allotted a chak near village abadi on plots Nos. 5 M etc. and possession was delivered to them as aforesaid. Likewise Param Hans and Ram Briksh respondents Nos. 2 and 3 were also allotted a chak No. 36 near village abadi and they were in possession over it ever since the delivery of possession over the respective chaks to the various tenure holders. The petitioners are said to have purchased a portion of abadi plot No. 21, which is situate in between their aforesaid chak No. 4 and their house. The petitioners have averred that they purchased this abadi plot for constructing their house over it also extending over a portion of their adjoining land of chak No. 4. A little prior to the notification of the village under S. 52 of the Act an application was moved by respondents Param Hans and Daya Shanker before the Consolidation Officer for providing a chak road from village abadi as approach road to their chak land. An objection was filed by the petitioners opposing the said application wherein they had raised an objection asserting that the application is not maintainable as proceedings regarding allotment of chak were completed long ago and possession was delivered after confirmation of provisional consolidation scheme long ago and at this stage no chak road can be provided to any individual tenure-holder. They also alleged the application moved by the respondents to be mala fide and to cause irreparable harm and damage to them. They further asserted that there already exists a passage from the village abadi to the respondents' chak and there is no necessity of carving out a new chak road at their instance and for their individual benefit and the application is designed to cause irreparable damage to the petitioners. 3. On the said application the Assistant Consolidation Officer called a report from the Assistant Consolidator who made spot inspection and submitted a report proposing a chak road indicated in red ink on the map appended to it. He had further mentioned in the report that there exists rasta from village abadi on the eastern boundary of chak No. 48. This report was , forwarded by the Assistant Consolidation ' Officer to the Consolidation Officer who submitted his own report on 18th Aug. He had further mentioned in the report that there exists rasta from village abadi on the eastern boundary of chak No. 48. This report was , forwarded by the Assistant Consolidation ' Officer to the Consolidation Officer who submitted his own report on 18th Aug. 1979 to the Settlement Officer (Consolidation), I which is contained in Annexure 5. In this report it is mentioned that since chak holders No. 4 (the petitioners) do not permit chak holders Nos. 2 and 3 to pass through their land, which is situate in between the chak and the abadi, as such chak holder No. 36 and others have demanded a chak road from the village abadi. It is further mentioned that there is an old rasta from village abadi running towards south of chak No. 82. He, therefore, proposed that from this rasta a passage to chak No. 36 be also provided. It was, however, mentioned that chak holder No. 36 (respondents Nos. 2 and 3) are not satisfied with this proposal. The Consolidation Officer made a proposal of another chak road to chak No. 36 but to this proposal also it is mentioned that they are not agreeable. A third proposal indicated in the report was to the effect that a passage be provided near plot No. 12 towards the east of chak No. 82 and be joined with the passage to the old rasta from the village abadi by turning it towards south and this according to him appears to be most suitable passage. 4. The Deputy Director of Consolidation on receiving this report directed the Setttlement Officer (Consolidation) to make spot inspection and to submit a report on it. The Settlement Officer (Consolidation) thereupon submitted a report on 11th Jan. 1980 proposing a chak road running on a portion of petitioners' land of aforesaid chak No. 4. the petitioners have averred in para 21 of the writ petition that the Settlement Officer (Consolidation) had not made a spot inspection in their presence and an ex parte report was submitted by him. Although the averments contained in para 21 of the writ petition have been denied in the counter-affidavit as incorrect but it has not been indicated in the counter affidavit as to when the Settlement Officer (Consolidation) had made the spot inspection and who were present at the time of his inspection. Although the averments contained in para 21 of the writ petition have been denied in the counter-affidavit as incorrect but it has not been indicated in the counter affidavit as to when the Settlement Officer (Consolidation) had made the spot inspection and who were present at the time of his inspection. This reference report has been accepted by the Deputy Director of Consolidation by the impugned order dated 18th Aug., 1981. This order has been challenged by the petitioners in this writ petition. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners strenuously contended that the impugned order passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation is per se wrong, illegal and without jurisdiction. His contention was that after confirmation of the provisional consolidation scheme and finalisation of chaks and delivery of possession over it to the tenure-holders in the unit no chak road could be provided for the benefit of individual chak holder No. 36 and in support of his contention reliance was placed upon a decision in Ram Murat v. Mata Saran, 1982 All W C 160 : (1982 All LJ 394), wherein agreeing with the view taken in Sripat v. Haridwar, 1980 All W C 146 : (1980 UPLT NOC 74), I had held that (at p. 397 of All L J) : "The Deputy Director of Consolidation in exercise of power under S. 48 (1) or sub-cl. (3) could consider the legality or propriety or correctness of the orders passed by the subordinate authorities or proceedings taken by them. He cannot in exercise of power under S. 48 (3) nor under S. 42-A interfere with the consolidation scheme and cannot make any alteration in the chaks of the tenure-holders by providing chak road or nali to any individual tenure-holder for which there is no provision under the Act." 6. Learned counsel for the respondents, however contended that public pathway, chak road or nali can be provided at any stage in public interest on the application of any tenure-holder and in support of his contention he placed reliance upon a decision in Shri Dhar v. Dy. Dir. Learned counsel for the respondents, however contended that public pathway, chak road or nali can be provided at any stage in public interest on the application of any tenure-holder and in support of his contention he placed reliance upon a decision in Shri Dhar v. Dy. Dir. of Consolidation, 1981 Rev Dec 146 : (1981 UPLT NOC 113), wherein R.S. Singh, J. made a reference to his earlier decision in Sripat v. Haridwar (supra) and observed : "One of the disputes between the parties appears to be as to whether the application of respondent No. 3 was for providing a public pathway or for a private Rasta and the other dispute is as to whether the application for providing a Rasta after the finalisation of the allotment of chak proceedings is maintainable and the consolidation authorities have jurisdiction to provide a rasta at this stage. From the perusal of the application of respondent No. 3 dated July 10, 1979 it does not appear that respondent No. 3 has claimed a rasta in his own interest and from the allegations and the prayer made in this application it is quite clear that public pathway has been claimed in the interest of the village people." 7. The learned Judge after holding that the prayer was not for providing a private pathway observed that : "The decision relied upon by the petitioners and reported in Sripat v. Haridwar, (1980 UPLT NOC 74) (supra) has no application to the facts of the present case as it deals with a case of private pathway". 8. Placing reliance upon the other two decisions of this Court in Rajpati Tewari v. Dy. Dir. of Consolidation, Civil Misc. Writ No. 8605 of 1978 decided on Feb. 28, 1980 : (reported in 1980 All LJ NOC 144), and Smt. Lal Dei v. Dy. Director of Consolidation, Civil Misc. Writ No. 7996 of 1979, decided on Aug. 20, 1980, the learned Judge upheld the order passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation providing a public rasta. 9. Having given my anxious consideration to the matter I am of the opinion that no chak road can be provided by the Deputy Director of Consolidation in exercise of powers under S. 48, sub-cl. 20, 1980, the learned Judge upheld the order passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation providing a public rasta. 9. Having given my anxious consideration to the matter I am of the opinion that no chak road can be provided by the Deputy Director of Consolidation in exercise of powers under S. 48, sub-cl. (3), nor under S. 42-A of the Act for the benefit of any individual tenure-holder after the confirmation of the provisional consolidation scheme and finalisation of chaks to various tenure-holders in the unit. If such power is supposed to rest in the Deputy Director of Consolidation to provide chak road for the benefit of individual tenure-holders on their application after confirmation of the provisional consolidation scheme no finality can be attached to the allotment of chaks made to the tenure-holders in the unit because then any tenure-holder can approach the Deputy Director of Consolidation for providing a chak road to his individual chak which will necessarily affect the other confirmed chaks allotted to other tenure-holders by providing a passage through the allotted land and there would be no end to litigation on that score. Proper stage for claiming a chak road by a tenure-holder is either at the stage of S. 8-A or under S. 20 when statement of proposals are prepared by the Consolidation authorities. At that stage a tenure-holder, if he feels that there would be no approach road to his chak, can file an objection claiming a chak road which may be provided by the authorities, but having failed to do so he cannot after confirmation of the statement of proposals and finalisation of chaks wake up and approach the Deputy Director of Consolidation for orders under S. 48, sub-cl. (3) of the Act for providing to him an approach road to his chak. If such an objection is held to be maintainable it would operate to affect the finality of allotment of chaks. The proposed allotment of chak under S. 20 of the Act assumed finality after decision of the Deputy Director of Consolidation in revision under S. 48, sub-cl. (1), of the Act arising out of allotment of chak proceedings under S. 20 of the Act. Although there is no bar in making a reference under S. 48, sub-cl. The proposed allotment of chak under S. 20 of the Act assumed finality after decision of the Deputy Director of Consolidation in revision under S. 48, sub-cl. (1), of the Act arising out of allotment of chak proceedings under S. 20 of the Act. Although there is no bar in making a reference under S. 48, sub-cl. (3), of the Act at any stage till de-notification in regard to matters covered by the provision of the Act or for giving effect to orders passed and the Deputy Director of Consolidation can, in exercise of power under S. 48 (3) vested in him, consider the legality or propriety or correctness of orders passed by subordinate authorities or proceedings taken by them but certainly this power could not be so exercised as to amount (to) review of an order passed by him earlier under S. 48 of the Act on that matter, as it is well settled that the Deputy Director of Consolidation has no jurisdiction to review his own orders, (see Mst. Kailashi v. Dy. Dir of Consolidation, 1970 Rev Dec, 24 R.P. Singh v. Dy. Director, 1977 All LJ 392, and Banwari v. Dy. Dir. of Consolidation 1979 All LJ 175). 10. It is a well known rule that what cannot be done directly it cannot be achieved indirectly and thus the Deputy Director of Consolidation cannot in exercise of power under S. 48, sub-cl. (3) unsettle the settled things and he cannot in exercise of such power pass orders so as to affect confirmed provisional consolidation scheme merely for the benefit of an individual tenure-holder at his instance. He can, of course, in exercise of power under S. 48 (3) make orders for giving effect to final orders passed in proceedings under S. 9-A or under S. 20 or other sections of the Act which were not given effect to by the time of confirmation of the consolidation scheme under S. 23 of the Act. A claim by an individual tenure-holder for providing him a chak road cannot be raised after finalisation and confirmation of chaks and the Deputy Director of Consolidation would have no jurisdiction to pass an order providing a chak road for the benefit of an individual tenure-holder. 11. A claim by an individual tenure-holder for providing him a chak road cannot be raised after finalisation and confirmation of chaks and the Deputy Director of Consolidation would have no jurisdiction to pass an order providing a chak road for the benefit of an individual tenure-holder. 11. A chak road, however, can be provided in exercise of power under S. 48 (3) of the Act for the benefit of general public as a public pathway and not as a private pathway. This manifest from the provisions incorporated under S. 52-A of the Act by an amendment made by U. P. Act No. 31 of 1970, which provides that chak roads and chak gools can be provided by the Collector even after de-notification of village under S. 52 (1) of the Act if a representation in that behalf is made by not less than 10 per cent of the total number of tenure-holders. As to how such power is to be exercised, a guide line has been provided under cl. (a) of sub-s. (4) of S. 52-A, which reads : - "That as far as practicable, provision of Chak Roads and Chak Guls should be made primarily by utilising land vested in the Gaon Sabha and secondarily out of land held by those tenure-holders whose chaks are connected with the proposed Chak Roads or Chak Guls, and in the last resort, out of any other land." (emphasis supplied). It has been further provided under cl. (b) of sub-s. (4) of S. 52-A that : "The re-arrangement of Chaks should be made only to the extent it is really necessary for making provision of Chak Roads and Chak Guls with the minimum possible dislocation in the Consolidation Scheme already confirmed." 12. It is thus evident that when chak roads and chak gools can be provided for the benefit of general public and to tenure-holders on the representation made in that behalf by the tenure-holders, (not less than 10 per cent of the total number of the tenure-holders) why then such a power could not be construed to rest in the Deputy Director of Consolidation under S. 48 (3) of the Act for providing a chak road for the benefit of majority of the tenure-holders and public in general. 13. 13. The said power under S. 52-A of the Act could not be exercised at the instance of any individual tenure-holder or for his individual benefit which is manifest from the provision to the effect that such power is to be exercised only on a representation made in that behalf by not less than 10 per cent of the total number of the tenure-holders. Thus when a chak road cannot be provided even under section 52-A at the instance of an individual tenure-holder and for his benefit alone, such a thing cannot be done in exercising power under S. 48 (3) of the Act in the absence of any provision in the Act for the same. 14. In this view of the matter I am of the opinion that although no chak road can be provided by the Deputy* Director of Consolidation in exercise of powers under S. 48, sub-cl. (3), of the Act for providing a rasta or gool to any private tenure-holder after finalisation of allotment of chaks and confirmation of the consolidtion scheme, but a chak road and chak gool can be provided by the Deputy Director of Consolidation in the interest of the tenure-holders in general if it is found that there exists no provision or inadequate provision of chak roads or chak gools and majority of tenure-holders are put to great inconvenience in approaching to their respective chaks or in irrigating their chak land in the absence of chak roads and chak gools. 15. Although no guideline has been provided for the exercise of such power under S. 48 of the Act but the consolidation authorities while proceeding to provide chak roads and chak gools, on being satisfied that it will be in the best interest of tenure-holders in general, should act in accordance with the guidelines provided in els. (a) and (b) of sub-s. (4) of S. 52-A of the Act which appears to meet such contingency in an appropriate manner. The aforesaid being a salutary provision, can safely be adopted as an appropriate guideline in the matter. 16. (a) and (b) of sub-s. (4) of S. 52-A of the Act which appears to meet such contingency in an appropriate manner. The aforesaid being a salutary provision, can safely be adopted as an appropriate guideline in the matter. 16. No doubt it is correct to say that the said provision contained in S. 52-A covers matters cropping up after the notification but it appears to be expedient in the interest of justice to follow the principles enunciated and guideline provided therein while providing appropriate chak roads and gools even in proceedings under S. 48 (3) of the Act, being a salutary provision in that behalf and to my mind it would be quite equitable, just and proper to follow guideline provided in the said provision while providing chak roads in the public interest and for the benefit of the tenure-holders in general after the stage of confirmation of consolidation s.heme. 17. In the present case, the Assistant Consolidation Officer, in his report dated 18th Aug., 1979, indicated certain proposals by which a chak road may be provided and it is mentioned in the report that the respondents chak holder No. 36 were not agreeable to the carving of chak road as was proposed. They appeared to be insisting to get a chak road through the chak land of the petitioners, namely, chak No. 4 which is adjacent to petitioners' abadi land. The petitioners have averred that the Settlement Officer (Consolidation) made spot inspection in their absence. There is a bald denial of this assertion and nothing is stated as to who were present at the time of spot inspection. The petitioners in para 3 of their objection which they had filed against the spot inspection report had clearly mentioned that the spot inspection was made by the Settlement Officer (Consolidation) in their absence as they were at Lucknow attending their duty. The Deputy Director of Consolidation has not taken into consideration the objection which was filed by the petitioners against the reference report by the Settlement Officer (Consolidation). The Deputy Director of Consolidation has not taken into consideration the objection which was filed by the petitioners against the reference report by the Settlement Officer (Consolidation). He has also not considered the objection regarding jurisdiction and maintainability of the application of the respondents for providing a chak road to their chak No. 36 and without deciding on these questions raised by the petitioners the Deputy Director of Consolidation accepted the reference made by the Settlement Officer (Consolidation) by a non-speaking order mentioning that in his opinion by carving out chak road in question the petitioners would not be put to any damage. The petitioners have asserted that they will be put to great irreparable loss and inconvenience if chak road is provided on their chak land as their abadi land which they purchased would be separated from the chak land and it will cause great hardship to them in extending their abadi which they propose to extend on a portion of the chak land and the land which they have purchased abutting their house in the abadi. All these questions have not been taken into consideration by the Deputy Director of Consolidation. He has also not considered the other proposals for providing a chak road as was indicated by the Consolidation Officer in his report dated 18-8-1979. In such a controversial matter the Deputy Director of Consolidation should have himself visited the spot to determine the desirability of providing a chak road. He could exercise jurisdiction for providing a chak road if it was for the benefit of the tenure-holders in general because no chak road could be provided to the individual tenure-holder (chak holder No. 36). Although in the impugned order a passing reference is made that the proposed chak road would be for the benefit of general public but nothing has been indicated as to who would be beneficiaries by providing a chak road and whether the tenure-holders in general require carving out of the chak road in question and without that they have no approach road to their chaks. 18. It is well settled that the jurisdiction of a Court or tribunal may depend upon the fulfilment of some condition precedent or upon the existence of some particular fact. Such a fact is collateral to the actual matter which it has to try and decide. 18. It is well settled that the jurisdiction of a Court or tribunal may depend upon the fulfilment of some condition precedent or upon the existence of some particular fact. Such a fact is collateral to the actual matter which it has to try and decide. The prerequisite conditions for the exercise of jurisdiction by the Court or tribunal are vital and mandatory and their non-compliance would impliedly operate to nullify action taken and order passed by the concerned authority. (See Hori Lal v. Dy. Director of Consolidation, 1982 Rev Dec 78 : (1982 Ali L J 223), para 41). In the instant case opposite party No. 1 has failed to consider whether the chak road in question would be in the interest of general public and to meet the requirement of tenure-holders in general and that it is not for the benefit of an individual tenure-holder. The exercise of jurisdiction by the Deputy Director of Consolidation depended on the existence of this vital jurisdictional fact, which has got to be determined objectively and on merits by the Deputy Director of Consolidation, and the mere casual remark in the order that the chak road would be in the interest of general public cannot be sustained. 19. Learned counsel for the respondents referred to the certified copy of an application filed by Daya Shanker Dubey and ten other persons for providing chak road from the village abadi and contended that it was not for the benefit of only respondents Nos. 4 and 5 (Chak holder No. 36) who had applied for providing a Chak road to them. No doubt the said application purports to have been moved by Daya Shanker and ten other persons but it has very clearly been mentioned in the beginning as well as in the prayer that a chak road may be provided from village abadi to chak No. 36. Learned counsel for the respondents contended that although in the application the said prayer is mentioned but in para 3 it is mentioned that there exists no chak road through which from village abadi the person may approach their chaks. Referring to this averment he urged that the chak road in question will be for the benefit of majority of tenure-holders. Referring to this averment he urged that the chak road in question will be for the benefit of majority of tenure-holders. Learned counsel for the petitioners challenges the genuineness of the said application and pointed out that in the impugned order it is mentioned that reference is made on the application of Daya Shanker and Param Hans. Without expressing any opinion on the said disputed fact it would suffice to say that the Deputy Director of Consolidation before passing the impugned order should have determined the jurisdictional fact as to whether the chak road which he was going to provide was in fact required for the benefit of tenure-holders in general or not. It was after recording this finding he could proceed to carve out a chak road in the manner and on the guidelines indicated in sub-s. (4) of S. 52-A. It may further be expressed that no chak road can be provided to an individual tenure-holder and it can only be carved out if it is found to be for the benefit of tenure-holders in general. Thus in my opinion the impugned order passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation cannot be sustained and deserves to be quashed. 20. In the result the writ petition succeeds and is allowed. The impugned order dated 19th Aug., 1980 passed by the Assistant Director of Consolidation, Lucknow, camp at Gorakhpur, respondent No. 1, is hereby quashed and the Deputy Director of Consolidation is directed to decide the case afresh and in the light of observations made above. In the circumstances the parties are directed to bear their own costs.