R. H. ZAIDL, J. ( 1 ) HEARD learned counsel for the petitioners, learned counsel for the contesting respondents and also learned standing counsel. ( 2 ) BY means of this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioners pray for issuance of a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated 30. 7. 1984 passed by the Assistant Consolidation Officer in exercise of power under Section 48 of the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act (for short the Act ). The prayer for a direction in the nature of mandamus staying the operation of the impugned order has also been made. ( 3 ) THE present petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India arises out of the proceedings under Section 20/21 of the Act. ( 4 ) IT appears that the chaks were formulated by the Assistant Consolidation Officer. Parties filed objections, which were referred to the Consolidation Officer for decision. Parties produced evidence, oral and documentary, in support of their cases. The Consolidation Officer dismissed the abjections by his Judgment and order dated 6. 11. 1982. Aggrieved by the said judgment, one of the objectors, i. e. Moti, filed an appeal before the Settlement Officer, Consolidation. The settlement Officer, Consolidation also dismissed the appeal by his judgment and order dated 13. 5. 1983. Aggrieved by the said order, a revision was filed before the Deputy Director of consolidation which ultimately came to the file of Assistant Director of Consolidation, Varanasi. The Assistant Director of Consolidation allowed the revision by his Judgment and order dated 30. 7. 1984. Hence, the present petition. ( 5 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioners vehemently urged that the Assistant Director of consolidation has acted as the Consolidation Officer. He without recording any finding that the orders passed by the authorities below were either irregular, illegal or improper, as required under Section 48 of the Act, set aside the orders passed by the authorities below and substituted his own findings for the findings recorded by the authorities below. In support of his submission, he has placed reliance upon decisions of this Court in Writ Petition No, 29841 of 1992, Pandohi and Ors. v. Deputy Director of Consolidation and others and Udai Prakash v. Deputy Director of consolidation, Bahraich and Ors. , 1999 (2) AWC 936 (LB) : 1999 ACJ 76 . In support of his submission, he has placed reliance upon decisions of this Court in Writ Petition No, 29841 of 1992, Pandohi and Ors. v. Deputy Director of Consolidation and others and Udai Prakash v. Deputy Director of consolidation, Bahraich and Ors. , 1999 (2) AWC 936 (LB) : 1999 ACJ 76 . On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the contesting respondent supported the validity of the order passed by the Assistant Director of Consolidation, it was urged that the order passed by the assistant Director of Consolidation is concluded by findings of fact which are based on the relevant evidence on record. This Court, therefore, cannot interfere with the impugned order in exercise of power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. ( 6 ) I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and also perused the record. 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 interlocutory order) passed by such authority in the case of proceedings and may, after allowing the parties concerned an opportunity of being heard, make such order in the case of proceedings as he 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 ). " ( 7 ) IT is apparent from a reading of the aforesaid Section that the Deputy Director of consolidation can send for 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 interlocutory order)passed by such authority in the case of proceedings and may, after allowing the parties concerned an opportunity of being heard, make such, order in the case of proceedings as he thinks fit. The Assistant Director of Consolidation did not record any findings that the proceedings taken by the authorities below were irregular, incorrect, illegal or improper. He proceeded to decide the case as he was acting as the Consolidation Officer or the Settlement officer. Consolidation. It was not open to him to decide the case afresh without upsetting the findings recorded by the authorities below. The submission made by the petitioners is supported by decisions, referred to above and is, therefore, liable to be accepted. The impugned order passed by the respondent No. 1 is, thus, wholly illegal and without jurisdiction. The same deserves to be quashed. Also, the case is, therefore, liable to be remanded back to the Assistant director of Consolidation for decision afresh in the light of the observations made above. ( 8 ) FOR the facts and reasons given above, the present petition succeeds and is hereby allowed. The order dated 30. 7. 1994 passed by the respondent No, 1 is also quashed. No orders as to costs. ( 9 ) IT is further observed that the revision shall be decided expeditiously preferably within a period of two months after affording an opportunity of hearing to all concerned from the date a certified copy of this order is communicated to him. .