R. H. ZAIDI, J. ( 1 ) HEARD learned counsel for the parties and also perused the record. ( 2 ) BY means of this petition, petitioner challenges the validity of the order dated 27. 2. 98 whereby revisions filed by the contesting respondent Nos. 2 to 6 were allowed, and the chaks of the parties were modified, according to the comparative table attached to it. ( 3 ) IT appears that allotment of two chaks to the petitioner was proposed by the Assistant consolidation Officer. Objections were filed against the said proposal : but his chak was not altered by the Consolidation Officer, Settlement Officer Consolidation on appeal filed against the order of Consolidation Officer also did not interfere in the matter and dismissed the appeal filed by the contesting respondents. They, thereafter, filed the revisions before the Deputy director of Consolidation, against the orders passed by the Settlement Officer Consolidation. Deputy Director of Consolidation allowed the revisions by the impugned order and altered the chak of the parties, as Indicated in the impugned order. ( 4 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Deputy Director of Consolidation has acted Just like Consolidation Officer. He did not record any reason for setting aside the orders passed by the Consolidation Officer and Settlement Officer Consolidation and has, wholly arbitrarily and illegally allowed the revisions. The orders passed by the Settlement Officer consolidation and Consolidation Officer, have also not been set aside specifically by the impugned order but the revisions have been allowed. ( 5 ) LEARNED counsel for the contesting respondents, who has filed his caveat on behalf of the respondent Nos. 2 to 6 has actually supported the impugned order passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation. He ultimately conceded and agreed that this petition may be disposed of finally at this stage and the matter may be sent back to the Deputy Director of Consolidation for decision afresh in accordance with law. ( 6 ) SECTION 48 of the Act provides as under : "48. Revision and reference. He ultimately conceded and agreed that this petition may be disposed of finally at this stage and the matter may be sent back to the Deputy Director of Consolidation for decision afresh in accordance with law. ( 6 ) SECTION 48 of the Act provides as under : "48. Revision and reference. (1) The Director of Consolidation may call for and examine the record of any case decided or proceedings taken by any subordinate authority for the purpose of satisfying himself as to the regularity of the proceedings ; or as to the correctness, legality or propriety of any order (other than an interlocutory order) passed by such authority in the case or proceedings, may, after allowing the parties concerned an opportunity of being heard, make such order in the case or proceedings as thinks fit. (2) Powers under sub-section (1) may be exercised by the Director of Consolidation also on a reference under sub-section (3 ). (3) Any authority subordinate to the Director of Consolidation may, after allowing the parties concerned an opportunity of being heard, refer the record of any case or proceedings to the director of Consolidation for action under sub-section (1 ). Explanation 1.--For the purposes of this section. Settlement Officers. Consolidation, consolidation Officers, Assistant Consolidation Officers. Consolidator and Consolidation lekhpals shall be subordinate to the Director of Consolidation. Explanation 2.--For the purposes of this section the expression interlocutory order in relation to a case or proceeding. means such order deciding any matter arising in such case or proceeding or collateral thereto as does not have the effect to finally disposing of such case or proceeding. " ( 7 ) A reading of the aforesaid section reveals that the Director of Consolidation may call for and examine the record if any case decided or the proceedings taken by the subordinate authority for purposes of satisfying himself as to the regulatory of the proceedings or as to the correctness legality or propriety of any order other than an interlocutory order passed by such authority and may after allowing the parties concerned an opportunity of hearing make such order in the case of proceedings as he thinks fit. Thus, the Director of Consolidation is required to satisfy himself as to. . . . . . . . . . the regularity of the proceedings, the correctness, legality and propriety of any order passed by the subordinate authority. Thus, the Director of Consolidation is required to satisfy himself as to. . . . . . . . . . the regularity of the proceedings, the correctness, legality and propriety of any order passed by the subordinate authority. For allowing the revisions, he was, therefore, required to record a finding that the proceedings were either not regular or that the impugned orders were incorrect, illegal or Improper. The Director of Consolidation without recording the said findings has got no jurisdiction to interfere with the orders passed by the authorities below. In the present case, as it is evident from the Impugned order that the respondent No. 1 did not record the finding that the proceedings taken by the authorities below were in any manner irregular or that the orders passed by them were incorrect. Illegal or improper in any manner. A reference in this regard may be made to the decision of this Court In Hart Narain Mani v. D. D. C. . 1981 ALJ 252 : 1981 RD (HC) 72. Respondent No. 1 has passed the impugned order without recording the requisite findings and has decided the revisions as he was deciding the case acting as the consolidation Officer. The order passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation who exercised the powers of Director of Consolidation under Section 48 therefore, is liable to be set aside and this petition deserves to be allowed. ( 8 ) THE writ petition succeeds and is allowed. The impugned order passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation date 27. 2. 98 is quashed. The case is sent back to the Deputy Director of consolidation for decision afresh in the light of the observations made above and in accordance with law. .