JUDGMENT B.L. Yadav, J. - This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed against the order dated 1st December, 1977 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation allowing the revisions filed by Respondent nos. 5 to 10. 2. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. From a perusal of the impugned order of the Deputy Director of Consolidation it does appear that the grievances of Respondent nos. 5 to 10 who have filed the revision were not taken into consideration. A peculiar order was passed by stating the case of the petitioner (the opposite party in revision), as to how he has been affected in the allotment of chak proceedings. The Deputy Director of Consolidation must have considered the arguments advanced by Respondent Nos. 5 to 10 and their grievances and thereafter the grievances of the petitioner must have been taken into account. After weighing the convenience and inconvenience of both the parties, in view of the principles contained under Section 19 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, the order must have been passed. 3. The appeal was decided by making spot inspection. No finding was recorded by the Deputy Director of Consolidation as to why he was reversing the findings of the appellate court. The Deputy Director of Consolidation did not make spot inspection, otherwise he would have made some discussions in the impugned order. Even though there is no such rule that before deciding the revision the Deputy Director of Consolidation ought to have made the spot inspection, under the facts of the present case it was better if the spot inspection was made. The impugned order passed by him is also cryptic. No cogent reasons have been assigned as to why the revision was being allowed. This court has repeatedly held that the cryptic orders need not be passed in revision by the Deputy Director of Consolidation in exercise of wide and comprehensive powers under Section 48 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act. The impugned order consequently cannot be sustained. 4. In the result, the petition succeeds and is allowed. The impugned order of the Deputy Director of Consolidation dated 1st December, 1977 is quashed and he is directed to decide the revision afresh in accordance with law after making spot inspection. In the circumstances of the case, however, there shall be no orders as to costs.