ORDER K.N. Misra, J. - This petition filed by six petitioners namely, Tarkeshwar Pandey, Jagdish Pandey, Uma Shanker Pandey, Bunni Harijan, Channu Harijan and Dukhi, under Article 226 of the Constitution is directed against the order dated 19-2-1983 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation by which, in exercise of powers under S. 48, U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act thereinafter referred to as the Act), he quashed the Provisional Consolidation Scheme and directed it to be prepared afresh in accordance with the provisions of the Act and Rules framed thereunder and after validly constituting Consolidation Committee in the unit. 2. Petitioners in the present writ petition have averred that they and other tenure- holders of village Rudrapur district Deoria, were proposed chaks as against their original holdings in the provisional Consolidation Scheme prepared by the Assistant Consolidation Officer. Several tenure-holders filed objections which were disposed of by the Consolidation Officer and appeals preferred by them were also disposed of by the Settlement Officer Consolidation. Against - those orders, revisions are now pending before the Deputy Director of Consolidation. It has further been averred that the tenure-holders who have preferred revisions, and who are very few in number, instead of pursuing their revisions, appear to have approached the higher consolidation authorities with a view to get fresh provisional Consolidation Scheme prepared in the unit in order to serve their own interest by wrongly alleging that certain irregularities had been committed in the preparation of provisional Consolidation Scheme and allotment of chaks to the tenure-holders. The petitioners further averred that when they and other chak-holders came to know about the nefarious designs of those tenure-holders for upsetting the entire provisional Consolidation Scheme, they approached the higher Consolidation authorities and apprised them about their being fully satisfied with the allotment of chaks. They are said to have informed the joint Director of Consolidation, through application dated 29th September, 1982 about their satisfaction with the allotment of chaks. Similar applications were also sent to Settlement Officer, Consolidation, Consolidation Officer, Rudrapur and, also to the Consolidation Commissioner. No enquiry was, however, made on their representations by the said Consolidation authorities nor the Deputy Director of Consolidation visited the village before passing the said impugned order dated 19-2- 1983 quashing the entire provisional consolidation scheme and directing it to be prepared afresh. No enquiry was, however, made on their representations by the said Consolidation authorities nor the Deputy Director of Consolidation visited the village before passing the said impugned order dated 19-2- 1983 quashing the entire provisional consolidation scheme and directing it to be prepared afresh. The petitioners further averred that .when they came to know about the said order, they approached the Deputy Director of Consolidation requesting him to recall the said order and for considering the matter after hearing the concerned parties and making spot inspection. It has further been averred that it was urged before the Deputy Director of Consolidation by the petitioners that the impugned order has created chaos among the villagers and it would be harsh, unjust and improper if the entire proceedings for allotment of chaks would be quashed and fresh consolidation scheme would be prepared. The petitioners have averred that the said submission did not find favour with the Deputy Director of Consolidation and he turned down their request. Thus, aggrieved by the said order, the petitioners have filed this writ petition. 3. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the standing counsel representing the Deputy Director of Consolidation, on the merits of the writ petition. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners Sri T. N. Tiwari, urged that the Deputy Director of Consolidation acted illegally and without jurisdiction in passing the impugned order quashing the entire provisional consolidation scheme. According to him, the Deputy Director of Consolidation is not vested with such powers. He could, while disposing of the revisions under S. 48 of the Act, make necessary alterations in the allotment of chaks to tenure-holders, which he may deem fit and proper in exercise of powers under S. 48 of the Act. Referring to S. 48 of the Act, learned counsel urged that the Deputy Director of Consolidation, in exercise of revisional powers could call for and examine the record of any case decided or proceedings taken by any subordinate consolidation authority for the purpose of satisfying himself as to the regularity of the proceedings or as to correctness, legality and propriety of any order passed by such authority in the case or proceedings and may, after allowing the parties concerned an opportunity of hearing, make such order in the case or proceedings as he thinks fit. According to him, the Deputy Director of Consolidation could not pass an order quashing the entire provisional Consolidation Scheme prepared and published under Ss. 19-A and 20 of the Act. He could also not pass such an order without hearing all the concerned tenure-holders of the unit. The impugned order, thus, is illegal and without jurisdiction and also stands vitiated being violative of principles of natural justice. 5. In reply learned counsel for the State urged that the Deputy Director of Consolidation could, on being satisfied that the proceedings for preparation of provisional consolidation scheme suffers from manifest error and irregularities, as has been pointed out by the Deputy Director of Consolidation in the impugned order, quash the same in exercise of powers under S. 48 of the Act. 6. I have carefully considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties and have perused the impugned order passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation. The first question which crops up for consideration in the present case is whether the Deputy Director of Consolidation could, in exercise of powers under S. 48 of the Act, cancel the provisional consolidation scheme and direct a fresh one to be prepared, as has been done by him in the present case. 7. Under S. 19-A of the Act, the Assistant Consolidation Officer is required to prepare consolidation scheme for the unit in consultation with the Consolidation Committee. Tenure-holders are to be allotted land as against their original holdings in accordance with the provisions laid down in S. 19 of the Act. Section 20 of the Act provides that upon the preparation of Provisional Consolidation Scheme, the Assistant Consolidation Officer will publish it in the unit and also serve upon the tenure- holders concerned and persons interested notice containing relevant extracts showing the proposed allotment of chak to the tenure-holders as against their original holdings. The tenure-holders, on receiving extracts of provisional consolidation scheme showing allotment of chaks in C. H. Form No. 23 as against their original holding, can file within 15 days of the receipt of notice an objection under sub- s. (2) of S. 20 of the Act, disputing the propriety and correctness of the entries in the provisional consolidation scheme. The Consolidation Officer, on receiving those objections, is required to decide them in the manner provided in S. 21 after notice to the parties concerned and the Consolidation Committee. The Consolidation Officer, on receiving those objections, is required to decide them in the manner provided in S. 21 after notice to the parties concerned and the Consolidation Committee. Any person aggrieved by the order passed by the Consolidation Officer under sub-s. (1) of S. 21 of the Act can file appeal within 15 days before the Settlement Officer, Consolidation under S. 21 (2) of the Act, whose decision shall, except as otherwise Provided under this Act, be final. The order passed by the Settlement Officet, Consolidation would, thus, be subject to the decisions passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation in exercise of revisional powers under S. 48 of the Act. It would be relevant to notice that the consolidation officer as well as the Settlement Officer, Consolidation may, in exercise of powers under sub-sec. (4) of S. 21 while hearing and deciding various objections and appeal filed by the tenure-holder, for reasons to be recorded in writing and on being satisfied that a fair and proper allotment of land to the tenure-holders of the unit is not possible without revising the provisional Consolidation Scheme, can direct a fresh one to be prepared. (4) of S. 21 while hearing and deciding various objections and appeal filed by the tenure-holder, for reasons to be recorded in writing and on being satisfied that a fair and proper allotment of land to the tenure-holders of the unit is not possible without revising the provisional Consolidation Scheme, can direct a fresh one to be prepared. The said relevant provision reads thus : "Section 21 (4) : If, during the course of the disposal of an objection or the hearing of an appeal, the Consolidation Officer or the Settlement Officer, Consolidation, as the case may be, is of the opinion that material injustice is likely to be caused to a number of tenure-holders in giving effect to the provisional consolidation scheme, as prepared by the Assistant Consolidation Officer, or as subsequently modified by the consolidation officer, as the case may be, and that a fair and proper allotment of land to the tenure-holders of the units is not possible without revising the provisional consolidation scheme, or getting a fresh one prepared, it shall be lawful, for reasons to be recorded in writing, for (i) the Consolidation Officer to revise the provisional consolidation scheme, after giving opportunity of being heard to the tenure-holders concerned, or to remand the same to the Assistant Consolidation Officer, with such directions as the Consolidation Officer may consider necessary; and (ii) the Settlement Officer, Consolidation, to revise the provisional consolidation scheme, after giving opportunity of being heard to the tenure-holders concerned or to remand the same to the Assistant Consolidation Officer, or the Consolidation Officer, as the Settlement Officer. Consolidation, may think fit, with such directions as he may consider necessary." 8. A perusal of said provision clearly indicates that even the Consolidation Officer and Settlement Officer, Consolidation are vested with the power to revise or to direct preparation of fresh consolidation scheme by the Assistant Consolidation Officer. Although no such express provision is contained in S. 48 of the Act but such a power of directing fresh provisional consolidation scheme to be prepared can be exercised by the Deputy Director of Consolidation with reference to S. 44-A of the Act which specifically provides that where powers are to be exercised or duties to be performed by any authority under this Act or the Rules framed thereunder, such powers or duties may also be exercised or performed by an authority superior to it. If the Consolidation Officer and the Settlement Officer, Consolidation in exercise of powers under sub-s. (4) of S. 21 can direct fresh consolidation scheme to be prepared on being satisfied regarding the need of preparation of such fresh scheme, the same power can certainly be exercised also by the Deputy Director of Consolidation. 9. Under S. 48 of the Act, the Director of Consolidation/ Deputy Director of Consolidation is vested with wide powers of calling for and examining the record of any case decided or proceedings taken by the subordinate authority for the purpose of satisfying himself as to the regularity of the proceedings or as to the correctness, legality or propriety of any order passed by such authority in the case or proceedings as he thinks fit after allowing the concerned parties an opportunity of hearing. This power can be exercised by the Deputy Director of Consolidation suo motu on a revision petition being filed before him. His jurisdiction is not only confined to entertaining a revision against the orders passed by the subordinate consolidation authorities, but he can also call for and examine the record of any proceedings taken by the subordinate authorities, including the provisional consolidation scheme prepared under S. 19-A of the Act, for the purpose of determining the correctness, legality and propriety of those proceedings and to pass such appropriate orders as he may deem to be just and proper. Such powers can, however, be exercised by him after allowing the parties concerned an opportunity of being heard, which would be in the keeping of principles of natural justice. In this view of the matter I am unable to accept the contention of learned counsel for the petitioners that the Deputy Director of Consolidation had no jurisdiction to pass the impugned order, directing preparation of fresh provisional consolidation scheme. 10. The next argument of learned counsel for the petitioners was that the 'impugned order stands vitiated as all the tenure-holders affected by the impugned order were not given an opportunity of being heard by the Deputy Director of Consolidation before passing the said impugned order. I do not find any merit in this contention as well. It is relevant to notice that it would be a difficult matter for the Deputy Director of Consolidation to hear all the tenure-holders in the, village before passing an order for fresh preparation of provisional consolidation scheme. I do not find any merit in this contention as well. It is relevant to notice that it would be a difficult matter for the Deputy Director of Consolidation to hear all the tenure-holders in the, village before passing an order for fresh preparation of provisional consolidation scheme. Hearing of all the tenure-holders concerned would be necessary where he himself proceeds to revise the provisional consolidation scheme as is.required to be done by the Consolidation Officer and the Settlement Officer Consolidation under sub- s. (4) of S. 21 of the Act. But where the Deputy Director of Consolidation merely directs the subordinate consolidation authorities to prepare a fresh provisional consolidation scheme, hearing of all the tenure-holders would not be necessary. But while forming an opinion regarding desirability of preparation of fresh provisional consolidation scheme, the Deputy Director of Consolidation has to examine the relevant records of the proceedings ' regarding preparation of provisional consolidation scheme for ascertaining the correctness, legality and propriety of the proceedings taken. Such a drastic step in directing preparation of fresh provisional consolidation scheme is to be taken only in exceptional cases on an objective satisfaction after perusing all relevant records and forming an opinion that material injustice is likely to be caused to a number of tenure-holders in giving effect to the provisional consolidation scheme prepared by the Assistant Consolidation Officer or as subsequently modified by the Consolidation Officer or the Settlement Officer, Consolidation, while hearing objections and appeals filed by the tenure-holders. He has further to form an opinion that the existing defects in allotment of chaks formation of chak-roads, guls and Nali cannot be appropriately removed by passing suitable orders in pending revisions before him so as to avoid preparation of fresh consolidation scheme. Such an opinion has to be formed objectively considering the whole matter especially when consolidation scheme has been confirmed and the tenure-holders have been put into possession over their respective allotted chaks after the confirmation of provisional consolidation scheme made by the Settlement Officer, Consolidation, under S. 23 (1) of the Act. Such an opinion has to be formed objectively considering the whole matter especially when consolidation scheme has been confirmed and the tenure-holders have been put into possession over their respective allotted chaks after the confirmation of provisional consolidation scheme made by the Settlement Officer, Consolidation, under S. 23 (1) of the Act. Although it would not be necessary to give personal hearing to the tenure-holders while forming an opinion that material injustice is likely to be caused to a number of tenure-holders in giving effect to the provisional or confirmed consolidation scheme as prepared by the Assistant Consolidation Officer, but such an opinion has to be expressed on an objective satisfaction after careful perusal of all relevant records and uninfluenced by any extraneous consideration and not succumbing to the pressure wielded by persons of vested interest pressing for the preparation of fresh consolidation scheme. 11. Learned counsel for the petitioners, however, urged that there is no provision under S. 48 similar to one provided under sub-s. (4) of S. 21 of the Act and, therefore, in the absence of such provision the Deputy Director of Consolidation could not issue direction to the subordinate consolidation authorities for preparation of fresh consolidation scheme. He should have, if he was of the opinion that fresh provisional consolidation scheme be prepared, himself proceeded to revise the same after hearing all the tenure-holders. The impugned order, therefore, cannot be sustained being illegal and without jurisdiction. I am unable to agree with this contention as well in view of express provisions contained in S. 44-A of the Act, according to which such powers which can be exercised by subordinate consolidation authorities, could be exercised by the superior authority as well. Besides that the Deputy Director of Consolidation is further vested with supervisory jurisdiction as well under S. 48 of the Act. He is vested with the powers to call for the record for the purpose of satisfying himself as to the regularity of the proceedings and as to the correctness and legality of any order passed by such authority in the case or proceedings and may pass such order as he may deem fit and proper on the facts and circumstances of the case. No doubt while passing such an order he is required to allow the parties concerned an opportunity of hearing, but since in the proceeding regarding preparation of fresh provisional consolidation scheme under S. 19-A of the Act the Assistant Consolidation Officer is not required to hear all the concerned tenure- holders and as such they cannot be deemed to be party to that proceeding. It is only the Consolidation Committee which is required to be consulted in those proceedings by the Assistant Consolidation Officer while preparing provisional consolidation scheme and as such it alone would be appropriate concerned party to such proceedings. In this view of the matter it can very well be said that the Deputy Director of Consolidation, while directing a fresh provisional consolidation scheme to be prepared should have heard the members of the Consolidation Committee and not the other tenure-holders of the unit, because under S. 48 of the Act he is required to allow an opportunity of being heard only to the concerned party while determining regularity, correctness, legality and propriety of the proceedings taken by the subordinate consolidation authorities. In the present case, however, the Deputy Director of Consolidation has observed in the impugned order that the Consolidation Committee was not properly constituted. He has mentioned in the impugned order that the village records do not contain the approved list of the members of the Consolidation Committee and the proceedings with regard to its constitution appear to be fictitiously recorded. Since no valid Consolidation Committee was constituted in the unit, as has been observed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation, it can very well be said that technically the Deputy Director of Consolidation committed no error on that score while passing the impugned order without hearing the members of the Consolidation Committee. 12. However, in the end, the learned counsel for the petitioner urged that in the impugned order the Deputy Director of Consolidation has not mentioned that he had perused the record of the proceedings regarding preparation of the provisional consolidation scheme. 12. However, in the end, the learned counsel for the petitioner urged that in the impugned order the Deputy Director of Consolidation has not mentioned that he had perused the record of the proceedings regarding preparation of the provisional consolidation scheme. It is, therefore, not clear as to how the Deputy Director of Consolidation found all the irregularities in the preparation of the provisional consolidation scheme, which he has mentioned in the impugned order, regarding allotment of Uren chaks to various tenure- holders, and wrong valuation of plot 22/2; and that there has been a difference of more than 25 per cent in the allotted area as against the original holdings in allotment made to 24 tenure-holders of the unit and that chak roads have not been provided to five chaks enumerated in the impugned order. Learned counsel further pointed out that although in the impugned order the Deputy Director of Consolidation has mentioned that he has perused the record regarding constitution of Consolidation Committee, which, according to him, does not contain the approved list of members of the Consolidation Committee, but while recording that finding and directing that fresh Consolidation Committee be constituted according to rules, he should have at least heard those members of the Consolidation Committee whose names appear in the record. Some of the petitioners have averred in the petition that they are members of the Consolidation Committee. Those petitioners should, therefore, have been given an opportunity of being heard by the Deputy Director of Consolidation before passing the impugned order. There appears to be some force in this contention. 13. In the impugned order, the Deputy Director of Consolidation has not mentioned that he had summoned the record of the proceedings regarding preparation of provisional consolidation scheme by the Assistant Consolidation Officer. The Deputy Director of Consolidation can exercise jurisdiction in passing the impugned order after calling for the record and perusing the same in order to determine the regularity, correctness, legality and propriety of those proceedings regarding the proposed allotment of chaks made to the tenure-holders. The Deputy Director of Consolidation can exercise jurisdiction in passing the impugned order after calling for the record and perusing the same in order to determine the regularity, correctness, legality and propriety of those proceedings regarding the proposed allotment of chaks made to the tenure-holders. No doubt he has pointed out certain material irregularities in making the allotment of chaks in the provisional consolidation scheme, but such an order could only be passed and the error and illegality could be pointed out in the proceedings only on the record being summoned and perused, a reference to which deserve to be mentioned in the order itself, without which it cannot be assumed that the record was in fact summoned and perused. It also appears necessary that the Deputy Director of Consolidation should have given an opportunity of hearing at least to those members of the Consolidation Committee whose names appear on the record. Although it may not be a duly approved list of the Consolidation Committee, as observed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation while directing constitution of fresh Consolidation Committee, but even then it was appropriate for him to have given a hearing to those persons who claimed to be members of duly constituted Consolidation Committee. This has not been done by the Deputy Director of Consolidation prior to issuing direction regarding constitution of fresh valid Consolidation Committee and for the preparation of fresh Consolidation Scheme. Although the impugned order passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation does not suffer from want of jurisdiction, but the same deserves to be set aside on account of aforesaid infirmity pointed out above. Since opposite party 1 is directed to take a decision afresh in the matter, I refrain from expressing any opinion on merits of it. 14. In the result, the writ petition succeeds on the aforesaid ground and is hereby allowed. The impugned order dated 19-2-1983 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation, contained in Annexure 1, is hereby quashed and the Deputy Director of Consolidation is directed to decide and pass orders afresh as he may deem fit and proper in the matter according to law and in the light of observations made above and after perusing all relevant records and giving an opportunity of hearing to those persons who claim to be members of the Consolidation Committee and whose names appear in the list on record, if any. 15. 15. Parties to bear their own costs.