JUDGMENT : S.R. SINGH, J. 1. The writ petition is directed against the judgment and order dated 30.4.1992 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation whereby the revision preferred by lives Khan and others was allowed and the Petitioner's chak no. 392 allotted to him by the Consolidation Officer was disturbed and his chak as proposed by the Assistant Consolidation Officer was restored. 2. Heard Sri Rajiv Joshi, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner and Sri S.A. Shahs for the Respondents nos. 2, 3 and 5. 3. The argument of Sri Rajiv Joshi, learned Counsel for the Petitioner is that the order impugned in the writ petition suffers from manifest error of law in that the Deputy Director of Consolidation has allowed the revision by means of the impugned order without considering the view point of the Petitioner and without adverting to the inconvenience or injustice, which the Petitioner might suffer on account of the reversal of the scheme prepared by the Settlement Officer Consolidation. Sri Shaha, on the other hand, urged that there is no manifest error of law and that the Petitioner has not been able to make out a case that a grave injustice has been done to him as a result of the order impugned in the writ petition. 4. Having heard the learned Counsel for the parties. I am of the opinion that the impugned order passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation is no order in the eye of law inasmuch as the revisional court has failed to act in consonance with the provisions of Section 48 of the Uttar Pradesh Consolidation of Holdings Act, the power under the section though formulated in a language of wide amplitude, is in the nature of a supervisory power meant to be exercised on being satisfied as to the irregularities of the proceedings or as to the incorrectness, illegality or impropriety of any order (other than interlocutory order) passed or proceeding conducted by the subordinate consolidation authorities. The satisfaction of the Deputy Director of Consolidation within the meaning of Section 48(1) of the Act would be no satisfaction if it is arrived at by one sided consideration without adverting to the view point of the other party and without scrutinising the reasons, if any, given by the immediate subordinate consolidation authority-appellate court in the instant case-in support of the order under challenge in revision u/s 48 of the Act. In K.A. Anthappai vs. C. Ahammed, (1992) 3 SCC 277 , while considering the scope of revisional power under a provision of law similar to Section 48, the Supreme Court has observed that the power is essentially a power of superintendence and despite the wide language employed, the revisional court should not interfere with the finding of fact of the subordinate authority "merely because it does cot agree with the said finding" and it must be reluctant to embark upon independent assessment of the evidence and to supplant a conclusion of the own, so long as the evidence on record admitted of and supported the one reached by the court below. This principle in my opinion, would be equally applicable in the context of the powers u/s 48 of the Act as well. 5. A perusal of the impugned judgment makes it abundantly dear that the Deputy Director of Consolidation has not at all adverted to the view point of the Petitioner nor did he go into the soundness or otherwise of the reasons given by the appellate court. Ail that the Deputy Director of Consolidation has said in the operative portion of the order is. ISKA PRABHAV CHAKDAR SANKHYA 392 745 PER PARTA HAI KINTU IS SANSODHAN SE IN PRABHAVI CHAKDRON KI HANI HAHIN HAI. 6. The said conclusion of the Deputy Director of Consolidation is not preceded by any discussion or reasoning and is contained only in the operative portion and not in the discussion part of the judgment. Such a judgment, in my opinion, is no judgment in the eye of law, it is well settled that reason is sine-qua-non for a valid Judicial order. In fact the failure to give reason in support of any order having civil consequences vitiates the order. It is in fact recognised as the basic principles of tat "rule of law" enshrined in Article 14 of the Constitution. 7. In fact the failure to give reason in support of any order having civil consequences vitiates the order. It is in fact recognised as the basic principles of tat "rule of law" enshrined in Article 14 of the Constitution. 7. As to the argument of Sri Shafts, that no injuntoe (sic) has been done to the Petitioner, I am of the opinion that prima facie the Petitioner hat been deprived of some of his original holdings which were allotted to him by the Consolidation Officer, whose order was maintained by the Settlement Officer Consolidation in appeal. In absence of proper discussion of the view points of both the parties by the revisional court, it would be hazardous to guess whether any injustice has been done to the Petitioner some times even the slightest change in the chafe of a tenure holder at the revisional stage may lead to injustice to one party and undue enrichment to the others in the facts and circumstances of a given case, it is for the Deputy Director of Consolidation to see whether substantial justice has been done to the parties at the appellate stage in the matter of allotment of chak. 8. No other point was urged. 9. In the result the writ petition succeeds and is allowed. The Impugned order dated 30.4.1992 is quashed The Deputy Director of Consolidation is directed to readmit the revision to its number and decide the same in accordance with law and in the light of the observations made in the body of this judgment after affording opportunity of hearing to both the parties.