JUDGMENT M.P. Singh, J. - This writ petition is directed against the order dated 7-12-1987 passed by the Joint Director Consolidation on the letter dated 7-12-1987 sent by one Bhopal Singh M.L.A. 2. The Assistant Consolidation Officer prepared the provisional scheme under Sections 19-A of the Act, in consultation with the Consolidation Committee, in exercise of jurisdiction under the Act. No objection was filed against the proposal so made. 3. On 7-12-1987 a letter was written by Bhopal Singh a M.L.A. to the Joint Director Consolidation that, fresh proposal be made and proceedings of allotment may be done according to the instructions contained in his letter. A copy of that letter is Annexure-1 to the writ petition. 4. On the same day the Joint Director Consolidation, Meerut made the following endorsement on the said letter :- "S.O.C. Please arrange to get chaks recarved at the earliest." 5. The Joint Director Consolidation without applying his mind and for the reasons best known to him issued the above directions to the Settlement Officer Consolidation who in turn passed the following orders:- " pdcU/kh vf/kdkjh lj/kuk d`i;k la;qDr lapkyd esjB ds vkns'k fnukad 07-12-1987 dk vuqikyu lqfuf'pr djsaA " 6. As a result of the above two orders the Assistant Consolidation Officer started proceeding for recarvation of the chaks again. The law does not permit such an action. Once the proposal was made by the Assistant Consolidation Officer the provision of rules 46, 47, 48 and 48-B are only to be followed. In case no objection was filed then proposal made by the Assistant Consolidation Officer were deemed to be final. 7. The Joint Director of Consolidation had no jurisdiction except what has been conferred upon him under rule 110 of the Rules framed under the Act. He could only exercise administrative powers over the staff employed under the Consolidation of the State. It is no body's case that the Joint Director has exercised the power under Section 48 of the Act. 8. From the averments in the writ petition, counter affidavit and rejoinder affidavit it is clear that the respondent No. 1 has acted in order to oblige the M.L.A. which should not have been done. 9. Sri V.K. Malik, Joint Director, has filed his personal affidavit and has tried to justify his action which is highly deplorable. He should not be influenced by the recommendation of any body. 9. Sri V.K. Malik, Joint Director, has filed his personal affidavit and has tried to justify his action which is highly deplorable. He should not be influenced by the recommendation of any body. Since I am not called upon to record any finding on the conduct of the M. L.A., only this much is sufficient that the respondent No. 1 acted illegally in exercise of his jurisdiction. The orders of the respondent No. 1 dated 7-12-1987 and of the Assistant Consolidation Officer dated 4-1-1988 are quashed. The writ petition is allowed. No order as to costs. It is however, open to the Consolidation Authorities to proceed in accordance with law if it is permissible.