JUDGMENT Gulab C. Gupta, C. J. — The petitioners claim to be recorded tenants under one Sh. Malkiat Singh and were holding lands in their possession in several villages in Tehsil Amb, District Una. The respondents were also holding lands as tenants of one Mehar Singh in those very villages. The lands of the petitioners as well as of the respondents were subjected to consolidation and re-partition in the year 1962. It appears that in the re partition, the respondents lands situated on the roadside were allotted in favour of the petitioners. The parties, however, did not take any action against the same till 20-7-1982 when respondent No. 2 and others filed a revision under section 54 of the H.P. Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1971 (hereinafter called the Act) before the respondent No. 1. The respondent No. 1, admittedly enjoys powers of the State Government under the aforesaid provision. The said respondent, by his order dated 18-7-1983, Annexure P-A, held that though the consolidation scheme did not make a provision for reservation of roadside land to the holders thereof, it was a salutary principle which should have been followed at the time of re-partition. The respondent No. 1, there fore, held that the re-partition done in 1962 was not proper and consequently allowed the revision directing that the lands held by the petitioners on the roadside be given to the respondents by re-arranging distribution in accordance with the said order. The petitioners felt aggrieved by the said order and have preferred this writ petition challenging the legal validity thereof. 2. It may be mentioned that during the pendency of this writ petition, there was a dispute between the parties as to who was in actual possession of the land in dispute. A Commissioner was appointed to visit the spot and give the report. The report of the Commissioner indicated that the land in dispute was still in possession of the petitioners. The said report has been accepted by this Court. It is, therefore, clear that the impugned order of the respondent No. 1 has not been given effect to so far. 3. A bare perusal of the impugned order would indicate that it has been passed in exercise of the powers under section 54 of the Act. The said provision reads as under:— "54. It is, therefore, clear that the impugned order of the respondent No. 1 has not been given effect to so far. 3. A bare perusal of the impugned order would indicate that it has been passed in exercise of the powers under section 54 of the Act. The said provision reads as under:— "54. Powers of the State Government to call for proceedings.—The State Government may at any time for the purpose of satisfying itself as to the legality or propriety of any order passed, scheme prepared or confirmed or re-partition made by any officer under this Act call for and examine the record of any case pending before or disposed of by such officer and may pass such orders in reference thereto as it thinks fit : Provided that no order, scheme or re-partition shall be varied or reversed without giving the parties interested notice to appear and opportunity to be heard except in cases where the State Government is satisfied that the proceedings have been vitiated by unlawful consideration." 4. The first part of this provision no doubt, confers wide powers on the State Government to satisfy itself as to the legality or propriety of an order passed, scheme prepared or confirmed or re-partition made by any officer under the Act by calling for and examining the record of the case. This part does not indicate any guideline for exercising such a power. In inspite of it, it is clear that the power is extra-ordinary in nature and is not comparable to appellate or revisional power. This fact is also clear from the provision of section 55 of the Act For the aforesaid reason, the second part of section 54 of the Act becomes important as it lays down that the power of examining the legality and propriety can be exercised (1) by giving the parties interested notice and opportunity to be heard, and (2) only in cases where the State Government is satisfied that the proceedings have been vitiated by unlawful consideration. The aforesaid reading of the provision, in our opinion, brings out the purpose behind it and makes it amply clear that the power conferred on the State Government is extraordinary in nature. Under the circumstances, it was necessary for the respondent No 1 to first consider whether it was a case where exercise of such power was legally permitted. The aforesaid reading of the provision, in our opinion, brings out the purpose behind it and makes it amply clear that the power conferred on the State Government is extraordinary in nature. Under the circumstances, it was necessary for the respondent No 1 to first consider whether it was a case where exercise of such power was legally permitted. As stated earlier, the State Government before exercising the power under the first part of section 54 has to be satisfied that the proceedings have been vitiated by unlawful consideration. It was therefore, necessary for the respondent No 1 to first record his satisfaction in this behalf. It is only when he was prima facie satisfied that the proceedings were vitiated by some unlawful consideration that he would have given the opportunity to the parties interested to appear and be heard. Unfortunately, there is nothing in the impugned order to indicate that the respondent No. 1 had applied its mind to the aforesaid basic requirement of the provision. Nothing has been brought to our notice to indicate that there was even an allegation that the proceedings were vitiated by any unlawful consideration. In the circumstances, there was no justification in law for the respondent No. 1 to exercise the power under this provision. The impugned order deserves to be set aside on this ground alone. 5. Even otherwise, we are not satisfied that the exercise of power by the respondent No 1 is justified in law- It is apparent from the impugned order that the scheme of consolidation did not make any provision for reservation of roadside land to the owners thereof. Under the circumstances, the order of re-partition would not be vitiated only because the owners of roadside lands were not allotted that very land or land equivalent thereto on the roadside. The matter defies arithmetical division, as so many factors have to be taken into consideration at the time of re-partition. Under the circumstances, simply because the respondents were allotted lands other than their original possession on the roadside, would not by itself be a vitiating factor. Then what has escaped the notice of the respondent No. 1 is the fact that the re-partition was done in the year 1962 and the petitioners were in possession of the said land since then. Then what has escaped the notice of the respondent No. 1 is the fact that the re-partition was done in the year 1962 and the petitioners were in possession of the said land since then. Taking a contrary decision after twenty-one years would need some clear, cogent and strong reasons for the purpose. It cannot be overlooked that the petitioners would have made considerable improvements on the land during these years. Then the power under section 54 of the Act is not arbitrary power but power given to the State Government to promote justice between the parties. The manner in which the power has been exercised in the instant case and that too after such a long lapse of time, clothes the provision with some amount of arbitrariness, That can only be avoided by reading the requirements of Article 14 of the Constitution of India into that provision. Under the circumstances, the power under the aforesaid provision must be exercised within a reasonable time and for good and, sufficient reasons. These requirements are also not satisfied in the instant case. Hence, the impugned order is vitiated. 6. The petition accordingly succeeds and is allowed by quashing the impugned order dated 18-7-1983, Annexure P-A, passed by the respondent No. L No costs. Petition allowed.