JUDGMENT B. L. Yadava, J. - This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is directed against the order dated 15.11.83 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Azamgarh, allowing the revision filed by respondent nos. 2 and 3 under Section 48 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, (for short the Act). 2. The present petition arose out of proceedings under Section 20 of the Act. A provisional consolidation scheme was prepared as contemplated by Section 19-A of the Act and the same was published and extract of the same was sent to the tenure holders concerned. An objection was filed under Section 20 (2) of the Act by the petitioner as also by respondent nos. 2 and 3. 3. The Consolidation Officer decided the case against the father of the petitioner, who filed an appeal and the same was dismissed by order dated 30 11,76. Thereafter revision under Section 48 of the Act was filed and the same was allowed and remanded by order dated 23.6.79 (incorrectly mentioned as 23.8.79), to the appellate court again. The appeal filed by the petitioners was ultimately allowed by order dated 26.5.82 with an observation that at the stage of the Consolidation Officer the area of the petitioner was increased by more than 31% and those mistakes or infirmities were corrected by the order in appeal. Respondent nos. 2 and 3 filed another revision and the same has been allowed by the impugned order dated 15.11.83. It is against this order that the present petition has been filed. 4. Sri K. M. Sinha, learned counsel for the petitioners urged that the Deputy Director of Consolidation has made incorrect observation about the correct facts in his order that Plot nos. 1290, 1226, 1225, 1227, 1289, 1288 etc. were not the original plots of the petitioners which were given to them consequent upon the appellate order dated 26.5.82 shown in the amendment chart. A perusal of the amendment chart attached to the appellate order makes it clear that out of the plots given to the petitioner as a consequence of the appellate order, plot nos. 1271, 1272, 1273, 1274, 1286, 1298 and 1299 were the original plots of the petitioners. A perusal of the amendment chart attached to the appellate order makes it clear that out of the plots given to the petitioner as a consequence of the appellate order, plot nos. 1271, 1272, 1273, 1274, 1286, 1298 and 1299 were the original plots of the petitioners. He was emphatic in his argument that by the use of the word "etc." used by the Deputy Director of Consolidation in his order that all the plots are to be assumed which were given to the petitioners and if 7 plots out of them were original plots of the petitioners, as is clear from the certified copy of C. H. Form 23 filed on record, the order of Deputy Director of Consolidation was totally misleading and based on incorrect facts. The Deputy Director of Consolidation has set aside the order dated 26.6.82 in appeal (Annexure-1) and has maintained the order of the Consolidation Officer. He urged that in the order in appeal there was an observation that at the stage of the consolidation officer the area of the petitioner has been enhanced by 31%. The result is that the petitioners' area still remains enhanced by 31% even after the disposal of revision by the impugned order. The next submission was about the grievances of the petitioners not having been stated in the impugned order. No reasons were assigned as to why the revision was being allowed and without discussing the arguments of the petitioners, who were opposite parties in the revision, the Deputy Director of Consolidation abruptly came to the conclusion that the revision deserves to be allowed. Enhancement of area of the petitioners in consequence of the order of Consolidation Officer to the extent of 31% being against the statutory provisions of first proviso to Section 19 (1) of the Act, has been maintained in revision. 5. Sri Sankatha Rai, on the other hand, appearing for the respondents, urged that obviously plot nos. 1290, 1226, 1225, 1227, 1289 and 1288 etc. were not the original plots of the petitioners and the word 'etc.' would not mean that if other plots have been given to the petitioners by order dated 26.5.82 passed in appeal, that would not make any incorrect statement contained in the impugned order. 1290, 1226, 1225, 1227, 1289 and 1288 etc. were not the original plots of the petitioners and the word 'etc.' would not mean that if other plots have been given to the petitioners by order dated 26.5.82 passed in appeal, that would not make any incorrect statement contained in the impugned order. It was further urged that earlier the Deputy Director of Consolidation by his order dated 23.6.1979 (C.A. 1) has remanded the matter to the Settlement Officer (Consolidation) for decision of the appeal fresh and that order became final. It was further urged that the order of the Deputy Director of Consolidation did contain the grievances of the petitioners and even if the area of the petitioners remains enhanced by 31% consequent upon the order of Consolidation Officer, there was no illegality. He further urged that no injustice has been done to the petitioners by the impugned order and the writ petition deserves to be dismissed. 6. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties I am of the view that the submissions urged by the learned counsel for the petitioners cannot be said to be without substance. The first point which requires determination is that the Deputy Director of Consolidation made a mention in the impugned order that plot nos. 1290, 1226, 1225, 1227, 1289, 1288 etc. were given to the petitioners on the basis of the order dated 26.5.82 passed by the Assistant Settlement Officer (Consolidation), Azamgarh, but these plots were not original of plots of the petitioners. I have perused the amended chart attached with the order in appeal which indicated that plot nos. 1271, 1272, 1274, 1286, 1298 and 1299 (7 plots with different areas) were the original plots of the petitioners. This fact is clear by a perusal of C. H. Form 23 which has been filed along with the writ petition. The observation of the Deputy Director of Consolidation by the word, 'etc.' cannot mean that at least 7 plots were the original plots of the petitioners given to them by the appellate order. But these plots escaped the attention of the Deputy Director of Consolidation. The statement of fact that plot no. 1290 etc. were not the original plots of the petitioners was incorrect and if some order has been passed on the basis of incorrect statement of fact, the same should not be sustained. 7. But these plots escaped the attention of the Deputy Director of Consolidation. The statement of fact that plot no. 1290 etc. were not the original plots of the petitioners was incorrect and if some order has been passed on the basis of incorrect statement of fact, the same should not be sustained. 7. The next point for determination is that by the impugned order the order of Consolidation Officer has been maintained and in the appellate order an observation was made (vide page 11) that by order of the Consolidation Officer there was an increase by 31% in the area of the petitioner. It means that the Deputy Director of Consolidation wanted to maintain the increase in the area by 31% in the chak of the petitioner. But he was not justified in doing so, inasmuch as the first proviso to section 19 (I) of the Act requires that unless permission of the Deputy Director of Consolidation has been obtained no tenure holder can have the area which varies by more than 25% from the original area held by him. As he was deciding the revision there must have been something to indicate that he has perused the order of the Consolidation Officer and that he has applied his mind to the increase in area by mote than 25% and he was maintaining the increase in the area of the petitioners by more than 25% for certain reasons. Unless there is something to indicate that he was conscious about the increase in area by more than 25% it cannot be assumed that he was complying with the proviso to section 19 (1) of the Act. 8. As regards the submission of the learned counsel for the respondents that the order dated 23. 6. 79 passed by the then Deputy Director of Consolidation remanding the case to the Settlement Officer (Consolidation) has become final, suffice it to say that order also makes an observation that there was an increase by 31% in the area of the petitioners as compared to his original plots. After the matter was remanded these mistakes or infirmities were required to be rectified and by the appellate order, the Settlement Officer (Consolidation), had rectified those mistakes. After the matter was remanded these mistakes or infirmities were required to be rectified and by the appellate order, the Settlement Officer (Consolidation), had rectified those mistakes. Further no ground was taken before the Deputy Director of Consolidation on behalf of the contesting respondents that the order dated 23.6.79 passed by the then Deputy Director of Consolidation remanding the case to the appellate Court has become final or that it shall have adverse effect on the case of the petitioners. I am of the view that the Deputy Director of Consolidation has not considered this as a point in form of the contesting respondent and the impugned order cannot be maintained by making a reference to the earlier order dated 23. 6. 79 passed by the then Deputy Director of Consolidation, particularly when it was directed that there was increase in the area by 31% in the plots as compared to the original plots of the petitioners. 9. As regards the next submission that no reasons have been assigned nor the grievances of the petitioner have been considered in the impugned order a perusal of the order would indicate that the Deputy Director of Consolidation just discussed the grievances of the contesting respondents, who were revisionists and without stating anything as to what were the points argued on behalf of the opposite parties, the present petitioners, abruptly came to the conclusion that the revision deserves to be allowed. It has been the consistent view under these circumstances that while allowing the revision arising out of proceeding under Section 20 of the Act, the grievances of both the sides must have been stated discussed weighed and looked into. There must be a foritive discussion in the impugned order. But there is no such discussion. 10. Now coming to the last point that substantial justice has been done by the impugned order. Reliance was placed on Parehu v. Deputy Director of Consolidation, (1964 A.L.J. 240). Suffice it to say that I have no quarrel with the propositions of law laid down in the case of Parehu (supra). But in the instant case substantial justice has not been done, in as much as the area of the petitioners has been increased by 52% which was against the First Proviso to Section 19 (1) of the Act. It cannot be said that substantial Justice has been done to the petitioners by the impugned order. But in the instant case substantial justice has not been done, in as much as the area of the petitioners has been increased by 52% which was against the First Proviso to Section 19 (1) of the Act. It cannot be said that substantial Justice has been done to the petitioners by the impugned order. 11. In view of the discussions made herein-before, the impugned order cannot be sustained. 12. In the result, the petition succeeds and is allowed with costs and the impugned order dated 15. 11. 83 is hereby quashed. It is directed that the revision may be decided afresh. If necessary, spot inspection may be made. However, under the circumstances it appears proper that the revisions be decided by some other Dy. Director of Consolidation other than Sri Kharak Singh Dariyal.