JUDGMENT K.N. Misra, J. 1. This writ petition is directed against the impugned judgment and order dated 30th August, 1978 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation in revision under Section 48 of the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act (for short the Act) and against the order dated 2761973 passed by the Settlement Officer, Consolidation in appeal arising out of proceedings under Section 20 of the Act. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are as follows : 2. The petitioner was allotted chak No. 325 and Ishaq, father of opposite parties No. 3 to 6 was allotted chak No. 422. Ishaq had filed an objection against the allotment of chak made to him. The petitioner was not impleaded in this objection nor any grievance was made against the allotment of chak to him. The Consolidation Officer, vide order dated 1781972 partly allowed the objection of Ishaq. The chak of the petitioner was not affected by this order. Thereupon Ishaq preferred an appeal against said order. In this appeal also the petitioner was not impleaded as a party. The Settlement Officer, Consolidation, however, allowed that appeal vide order dated 2761973. By this order he has disposed of several other appeals filed by other tenureholders. The petitioner was not impleaded in the appeal nor any notice was issued by the Settlement Officer, Consolidation to him while passing the said order dated 2761973. By this order the Settlement Officer, Consolidation, kad carved out a Nali in front of the house of the petitioner running on the eastern mend of his chak. Thus, in between his chak and his house this Nali was carved out. Aggrieved by this order the petitioner had preferred revision which was heard and allowed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation vide order dated 3081978 (Annexure No. 5). By this order the Deputy Director of Consolidation has shifted the nali which was carved out by the Settlement Officer, Consolidation on the eastern 'mend' of the ehak of the petitioner to the western 'mend' of his chak. This nali has now been provided in between the chak of the petitioner and his brother Idris thereby bifurcating the two chaks. This nali runs from north to south and has been extended to the chak of Sri Ishtiaq (chak No. 422). This nali has now been provided in between the chak of the petitioner and his brother Idris thereby bifurcating the two chaks. This nali runs from north to south and has been extended to the chak of Sri Ishtiaq (chak No. 422). This newly provided nali also passes through the chaks of Pyarey, Samad and Turab running on the eastern mend of the chaks. Aggrieved by these orders, the petitioner has filed this writ petition. 3. Abdul Samad, Turab and Gaon Sabha were ordered to be impleaded in this writ petition. Opposite party No. 8 Turab has filed a counter affidavit. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of opposite parties No. 3 to 6. No contest has been made on behalf of opposite party No. 7 Abdul Samad and Gaon Sabha. By order dated 23101978, the operation of the impugned order passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation was stayed. This interim order of stay was continued and remained operative vide order dated 511979. Thus, it is evident that the newly provided Nali under the order passed by the opposite parties No. 1 and 2 has not been carved out as yet on the spot. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri M. R. Misra, urged that since no objection was filed against the petitioner nor he was impleaded as a party in the appeal, and, as such, the Settlement Officer, Consolidation acted illegally and with material irregularity in exercise of jurisdiction in carving out the nali by his impugned order dated 2761973 (Annexuie No. 3). It was further urged by the learned counsel that the Settlement Officer, Consolidation is said to have made a spot inspection but be had not prepared any spot inspection memo nor any spot inspection memo is on record. This fact has not been averred in the writ petition and the learned counsel for the opposite parties, thus, urged that this point cannot be permitted to be urged. Learned counsel for the petitioner further urged that the Deputy Director of Consolidation had also not given any notice to the petitioner regarding making of spot inspection and no spot inspection memo is on record. Learned counsel for the opposite parties in reply submitted that spot inspection was made by the Deputy Director of Consolidation in the presence of the parties and it was made on the application of the petitioner himself. Learned counsel for the opposite parties in reply submitted that spot inspection was made by the Deputy Director of Consolidation in the presence of the parties and it was made on the application of the petitioner himself. To another argument urged on behalf of the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned counsel for the opposite parties pointed out that the record of the case was summoned by the Deputy Director of Consolidation and the same was perused by him at the time of passing the impugned order. He referred to the order passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation wherein it is mentioned that he has heard the parties and perused the record after making spot inspection. Learned counsel for the opposite parties, however, urged that he is not aware whether any spot inspection memo was kept on record or not because this fact was not averred in the writ petition, and as such, no inquiry on the point was made by him. It may, however, be mentioned that neither the Settlement Officer, Consolidation nor the Deputy Director of Consolidation has mentioned in his order that they had prepared spot inspection memo and the same was kept on record. Learned counsel for the petitioner in the end contended that neither the Settlement Officer, Consolidation nor the Deputy Director of Consolidation has taken into consideration the material fact that a nali for irrigation purposes already existed on the spot running northsouth. It passes through the western 'mend' of the chak of Sri Ishtiaq (Chak Holder No. 422), His contention was that since a nali already existed, and, as such, the Settlement Officer, Consolidation and also the Deputy Director of Consolidation should not have carved out and provided another nali to Shri Ishtiaq, Chak holder No. 422. Learned counsel urged that by providing this new nali the chak of the petitioner as well as that of his brother has been bifurcated. Thus, his contention was that opposite party Nos, 1 and 2 have acted illegally and without any justification in providing another Nali passing through western mend of the petitioner's chak. In reply, learned counsel for the opposite parties contended that the Settlement Officer, Consolidation has taken into consideration various factors while providing the nali running by the side of the Abadi. In reply, learned counsel for the opposite parties contended that the Settlement Officer, Consolidation has taken into consideration various factors while providing the nali running by the side of the Abadi. The Deputy Director of Consolidation has removed the grievance of the petitioner by shifting Nali from eastern mend of the petitioner to the western mend of his chak. The petitioner, in these circumstances, cannot urge that he stands prejudiced in any manner by the impugned order passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation, who has shifted the Nali which was provided in between his chak and the residential house. Learned counsel, thus, contended that no interference is called for by this Court in exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution. I have carefully considered the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the impugned orders and the averments contained in the writ petition and the counter and rejoinder affidavits. 5. It is quite apparent that the Settlement Officer, Consolidation committed a manifest error of law and jurisdiction in passing the impugned order dated 2761973 (Annexure No. 3) by which he carved out the 'Nali' running on the eastern mend of the petitioners' chak without giving any opportunity of hearing to him. He has also not taken into consideration the material fact that there already existed a Nali running northsouth passing through the western mend of the chak of Ishtiyaq. If any other Nali was required to be provided for irrigation facility to the appellant Ishtiaq and the existing Nali was not sufficient to meet the requirement, he should have mentioned the reasons as to why it is treated not to be sufficient for meeting the irrigation requirement in respect of chak of the appellant Sri Isbtiaq (chak holder No. 422). It appears from a perusal of his order, a certified copy of which was placed before me. that the Settlement Officer, Consolidation thought it desirable to provide a Nali running northsouth by the side of village Abadi, taking into consideration certain other aspects of the matter regarding waterlogging of the village Abadi during rainy season. That question had no relevance so far as the disposal of the appeal was concerned. that the Settlement Officer, Consolidation thought it desirable to provide a Nali running northsouth by the side of village Abadi, taking into consideration certain other aspects of the matter regarding waterlogging of the village Abadi during rainy season. That question had no relevance so far as the disposal of the appeal was concerned. If any such Nali was required to be provided for in the interest of general public and tenureholders of the village, he should have made reference to the Deputy Director of Consolidation for suitable action in exercise of powers under Section 48 (3) of the Act, Thus, while deciding the appeal filed by Sri Ishtiaq, he should have taken into consideration whether the existing Nali, which was running on the eastern mend of his chak, was sufficient for the purpose of irrigation facility to his chak or not. This material aspect of the matter has not been taken into consideration by the Settlement Officer, Consolidation and he has provided a Nali even without affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. Thus, his order so far as carvation of a new Nali was concerned, deserves to be quashed to that extent. The Deputy Director of Consolidation has, however, shifted the Nali from the eastern mend of the chak of the petitioner to the western mend of his chak, thereby bifurcating the chak of the petitioner with that of his brother Idris. He has also not considered whether the existing Nali, which was running towards west of the Chak of Sri Ishtiaq was sufficient for meeting the requirement of irrigation to Chak holder No. 422 who had filed appeal. Chak holder No. 238, Turab or the other tenure holders Pyarey or Abdul Samad had not filed appeal or revision claiming a new Nali for irrigation of their chaks. It, therefore, cannot be said that the new Nali, which was provided by the Settlement Officer, Consolidation was provided for the purpose of providing irrigation facilities to these tenure holders. The Deputy Director of Consolidation has also not taken into consideration whether the existing Nali is sufficient for the irrigation facilities to the tenure holders in the locality or not. 6. A perusal of the order passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation as well as the Settlement Officer, Consolidation does not disclose that they had prepared spot inspection memo and had kept it on record. 6. A perusal of the order passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation as well as the Settlement Officer, Consolidation does not disclose that they had prepared spot inspection memo and had kept it on record. Although this fact has not been averred in the writ petition, but since it is not mentioned in these impugned orders that a spot inspection memo has been prepared and kept on record, I am unable to reject the contention of the petitioner's counsel simply because no averment to this effect has been made in the writ petition. 7. It is well settled that when a spot inspection is made, the authority making the spot inspection is required to make spot inspection memo and keep it on record so that with a reference to it their orders may be scrutinised for the purpose of determining whether they could be supported with reference to facts disclosed by the spot inspection. Thus, in view of above, I find that the impugned order dated 3081978 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Sultanpur, cannot be sustained and deserves to be quashed. 8. In the result, the writ petition succeeds and is hereby allowed. The impugned order dated 3081978 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation is hereby quashed and he is directed to restore the revision to its original number and decide the case afresh according to law and in the light of observations made above. A fresh spot inspection be made by the Deputy Director of Consolidation after giving due notice to the parties and a spot inspection memo be prepared and kept on record. If no orders have been passed regarding substitution of opposite parties No. 3 to 6, who are sons of deceased tenure holder Sri Ishtiaq, they be substituted as party in place of deceased respondent Sri Ishtiaq. The opposite parties 7 to 9 should also be given an opportunity of hearing in the revision which be decided after summoning the record of the courts below. The Deputy Director of Consolidation will also issue notice to Abdul Samad, Turab and the Gaon Sabha, the opposite parties 7 to 9, before passing order in the case. 9. No order as to costs. (Petition allowed)