JUDGMENT Hon’ble S. K. Singh, J.—Heard Sri V. C. Mishra, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri J. P. Singh, learned Advocate in support of the writ petition and Sri D. N. Shukla, learned Advocate assisted by Sri L. N. Shukla, learned Advocate in opposition thereof. 2. By means of this writ petition, challenge is to the order of the Deputy Director of Consolidation dated 18.7.2005 and 1.6.2005 (annexure No. 2 and 1 respectively). 3. There is no dispute about certain facts and, therefore, they may be summarised in brief for the purpose of disposal of this writ petition. 4. In the allotment of chak proceedings, against an order of the Settlement Officer Consolidation dated 16.12.2004 respondent No. 2 to 5 filed a revision before the Deputy Director of Consolidation which was numbered as revision No. 697 of 2005. In this revision, the revisionists impleaded 59 private respondents. A copy of the ground of revision has been annexed as annexure No. 6 to the writ petition. During the pendency of the revision respondent No. 2 came to this Court by filing writ petition being writ petition No. 32528 of 2005 with the prayer for staying delivery of possession upon which this Court disposed of the writ petition by its order dated 16.5.2005 by making observation that it is for the petitioner to approach the Deputy Director of Consolidation for getting the needful done and it is only thereafter they may come to this Court. It is at this stage it appears that a complaint was filed by respondent No. 2 and it is also claimed that several other persons/chak holders/villagers filed complaint before the Deputy Director of Consolidation. On those complaints, the Deputy Director of Consolidation called the report from the subordinate authorities and ultimately report of the Assistant Settlement Officer Consolidation came on 20.11.2004. The Deputy Director of Consolidation after examining the reports submitted by the lower consolidation authorities passed an order on 1.6.2005 by which he said that he is exercising his suo moto powers in the matter. It is thereafter he summoned the record and directed for issuance of the notice to large number of chak holders who may be said to have been aggrieved in the light of those reports. It is thereafter he summoned the record and directed for issuance of the notice to large number of chak holders who may be said to have been aggrieved in the light of those reports. Petitioner and large number of tenure holders of the village, on coming to know about the order of the Deputy Director of Consolidation, filed an application on 1.7.2005 to recall the order dated 1.6.2005. That application was rejected by the Deputy Director of Consolidation by order dated 18.7.2005 and thus the petitioner is before this Court challenging both the orders of the Deputy Director of Consolidation dated 18.7.2005 and 1.6.2005. 5. Submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that admittedly the revision filed by the respondent No. 2 to 5 i.e. revision No. 697 of 2005 was pending before the Deputy Director of Consolidation, which related to their grievance in respect of the improper adjustment of their chaks at the stage of the appellate authority and therefore it was open for the Deputy Director of Consolidation to give relief to the revisionist if they are so entitled in law but in no case the exercise of the suo moto powers on the alleged application of certain persons even who did not approach either the Consolidation Officer or the Settlement Officer Consolidation and they have not come before the Deputy Director of Consolidation by filing revision, can be permitted. Submission is that the Deputy Director of Consolidation is possessed with wide powers and in fact he is possessed with the same powers as the Consolidation Officer is possessed and he can make any kind of adjustment for doing the justice and balancing the equity between the parties. The Deputy Director of Consolidation can always make spot inspection to know spot situation for making just adjustment which may be in the ends of justice. The Deputy Director of Consolidation can always make spot inspection to know spot situation for making just adjustment which may be in the ends of justice. Submission is that if Deputy Director of Consolidation during the course of argument in the revision finds that some more chak holders are to be heard for justifiable reasons then he can always direct for impleadment of certain more chak holders so as to do the complete justice and, therefore, in these circumstances so far the case in hand is concerned .as the revision filed by respondent No. 2 to 5 besides certain other revisions were pending before the Deputy Director of Consolidation, exercise of suo moto powers for registering the matter cannot be said to be justified and thus passing of the impugned order dated 1.6.2005 for registering the matter and then summoning large number of chak holders simply on the report of the lower consolidation authorities cannot be said to be valid in law. Submission is that exercise by the Deputy Director of Consolidation besides being illegal, unwarranted, can be safely termed to be in excess of his jurisdiction and thus both orders are liable to be quashed. 6. In support of the aforesaid submission that during the pendency of the revision exercise of the suo moto powers and alteration in the chak of several chak holders who have not appealed and came before the Deputy Director of Consolidation cannot be said to be justified, reliance has been placed on three decisions of this Court reported in AIR 1975 Allahabad 126 (Ramakant Singh v. Deputy Director of Consolidation, U. P. and others), 1978 RD 167 (Ram Sunder Singh and others v. RamMohan Singh, Deputy Director of Consolidation and others) and 1978 (4) ALR 194 (Mohd. Vakil v. Deputy Director of Consolidation and others). 7. In response to the aforesaid, Sri Shukla, learned Advocate vehemently submits that the Deputy Director of Consolidation admittedly is possessed with wide powers and therefore if by placing reliance on the reports given by the subordinate authorities, with an intention to do the justice to large number of chak holders, if directed that matter to be registered under his suo moto powers, then no exception can be taken to it and in any view of the matter no interference is required in the writ jurisdiction as this Court exercises equity powers. Submission is that in the complaints various kind of illegalities were pointed out which can be found out from the record as has been annexed with the counter affidavit and therefore, in that light if the Deputy Director of Consolidation even during the pendency of the revision before him has exercised suo moto powers, then nothing wrong can be complained. Submission is that it is not a case where this Court is to interfere in the impugned orders. To support the wide powers of the Deputy Director of Consolidation Sri Shukla referred to the provisions of Section 48 of the U. P. C. H. Act and decision of the Apex Court in the case of Preetam Singh (dead) by L.Rs. and others v. Assistant Director of Consolidation and others, AIR 1996 SC 2881 . 8. In view of the aforesaid argument as noted above, this Court has given serious thoughts over the matter and thus the question which arises for consideration for this Court is that whether during the pendency of the revision filed by the respondent, No. 2 to 5 stating grievances in respect to the improper adjustment in their chaks, the Deputy Director of Consolidation can be permitted to exercise suo moto powers for correction of the alleged illegalities in the allotment of chak proceedings and like irregularities. 9. There cannot be any quarrel to the proposition, as submitted by Sri Shukla that the Deputy Director of Consolidation is possessed with very wide powers, so far the allotment of chak matters are concerned. The authority can always go to the spot, can always make all kind of changes which the law permits for making adjustment between the parties and at the same time if he finds that if some more parties are to be heard it is always open for him to direct for impleadment of those parties/chak holders and after giving adequate opportunity of hearing to all the concerned he can pass appropriate orders. Thus there being no doubt about the powers of the Deputy Director of Consolidation now this Court is to decide that whether once the Deputy Director of Consolidation is seized with a revision in which all kind of grievance in respect to the adjustment of chak can be rectified whether he can exercise suo moto powers for rectification of irregularities in allotment of chak proceeding. So far the case in hand is concerned, as noticed above, admittedly there were several revisions before the Deputy Director of Consolidation including that of respondent No. 2 to 5. A perusal of the complaint as filed before this Court with counter affidavit makes it clear that some irregularity in the allotment of chaks was complained before the Deputy Director of Consolidation. As observed above, during the course of argument in revision itself the Deputy Director of Consolidation was to summon the record and could direct any other chak holder to be impleaded as party if for interest of justice his presence is needed. Section 19 of the U. P. C. H. Act gives various guidelines for making adjustment between the chak holders. Section 20 of the Act permits a chak holder to file objection against the proposal made by the Assistant Consolidation Officer. The chaks are carved out at .initial stage by the Assistant Consolidation Officer and that is always subject matter of change on filing the objections before the Consolidation Officer and then on filing appeal before the appellate authority and revision before the revisional authority and if further needed on approach to this Court or he may approach to further higher forum. In respect to grievance of every individual/chak holder for redressal remedy is provided under the Act. At the same time if there are various kind of drastic irregularities then that is always at the very initial stage of the start of chak carvation proceedings upon which at that very stage if large number of chak holders comes with a complaint, the Deputy Director of Consolidation can get the matter enquired. But here is the case where after carvation of chak at Assistant Consolidation Officer stage, objections were decided by Consolidation Officer, appeals were decided by appellate authority and revisions were pending and, therefore, this Court is of the view that on complaint by the revisionist who already filed revision before the revisional Court the exercise of the suo moto powers may not be said to be justified and proper for the simple reason that both course that is exercise of revisional power on a revision filed under the statutory provision of Section 48 of the Act and at the same time exercise of the suo moto powers for the same purpose cannot be permitted to go on simultaneously. A perusal of the judgment of the Deputy Director of Consolidation indicates that he has noticed that in the report submitted by the lower consolidation authority there were certain chak holders who were not given chak on their original plots and in all there were fifteen chak holders in whose chak there has been variance of more than 25%. This happens sometimes in these proceedings. In the allotment proceedings so far the principle of allotment of original plots is concerned, it is not necessary that each and every original plot is to be given in chak of that chak holder. Requirement is that chak has to be given on largest part of his original holding and that too as far as possible therefore, plot of one has to go to other in most of the case. If a party feels something wrong he has a remedy to file appeal, revision etc. Take a case that the chak holder do not feel aggrieved with change then nothing is to be done. It is not for the Deputy Director of Consolidation or any of the authority to act suo moto by holding the brief of a party who has not approached. Here same is the situation. Even if in certain chaks there is variation of more than 25% in the valuation/area but no body is complaining by filing appeal or revision. If a remedy is provided to a party in law he has to avail it and if he submits to it then others are not to worry. Thus for the chak holders who have not come forward by taking recourse to recourse so provided in law then the Deputy Director of Consolidation or any Court is not to hold their brief. 11. In view of the aforesaid this Court is of the view that exercise of the suo moto powers by the Deputy Director of Consolidation cannot be said to be just and proper, but at the same time if during the course of argument in the pending revision before the Deputy Director of Consolidation on the facts if he feels that some more chak holders are to be heard for doing complete justice between the parties, he may always move accordingly. 12. At this stage on take note of the judgments of this Court noticed above, this Court is of the view that analysis as made above finds its support. 12. At this stage on take note of the judgments of this Court noticed above, this Court is of the view that analysis as made above finds its support. Observation made in the case of Mohd. Vakil (Supra) can be quoted at this place : “........The sole contention advanced by the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that opp. Party No. 4 not having filed any revision he would be presumed to have acquiesced to the orders passed by the Consolidation Officer and the Asstt. Settlement Officer (Consolidation) rejecting his claim. The question, therefore, posed for consideration by the learned Counsel for the petitioner is whether it is open to the Deputy Director of Consolidation in exercise of power under Sec. 48 of the U. p. Consolidation of Holdings Act (hereinafter to be referred to as the Act) to exercise suo moto power even though the party has not preferred a revision and proceed to consider his case. .......It is well settled that a person who does not challenge the order would be deemed to have acquiesced to the order and in the circumstances so far as his rights are concerned that Chapter stands closed and cannot be reopened howsoever, wide powers may be provided by a particular provision of the Act. “ 13. In the similar manner Full Bench of this Court in the case of Rama Kant Singh (Supra) made the following observation : “After the record has been called for by the Deputy Director of Consolidation under Section 48 he should examine the record to decide whether it was a fit case for exercise of the revisional jurisdiction suo motu. Such opinion shall have to be formed even where the application in revision moved by a party is defective having been made beyond the prescribed period of limitation or all the necessary parties have not been impleaded. If the Deputy Director of Consolidation finds that the case requires further hearing, he shall give notice to all the necessary parties irrespective of whether they were or were not impleaded in the application and after giving them reasonable opportunity of hearing, pass such orders as he thinks fit. Where the application in revision is not defective and is maintainable. the exercise of revisional jurisdiction shall be at the instance of the parties and not suo moto.” 14. Where the application in revision is not defective and is maintainable. the exercise of revisional jurisdiction shall be at the instance of the parties and not suo moto.” 14. So far the judgment on which the reliance has been placed by the learned Counsel for the respondent given by the Apex Court in the case of Preetam Singh (supra) suffice it to say that the decision of the Apex Court is not at all on the point. The decision of the Apex Court is on the point that even if the order of remand passed by the appellate authority has not been challenged, while considering the revision, the merits or otherwise of the remand order can be examined. 15. To conclude, it can be safely held that the Deputy Director of Consolidation in passing the impugned order dated 1.6.2005 for registering the matter in suo moto exercise has committed an error and at the same time in rejecting the application fried by the petitioner and other chak holders by order dated 18.7.2005 has also committed an error and thus both orders needs interference of this Court. 16. For the reasons recorded above, this writ petition succeeds and is allowed. The impugned orders of the Deputy Director of Consolidation dated 18.7.2005 and 1.6.2005 (annexure No. 2 and 1 respectively) are hereby quashed and now the revisions will be heard and decided by the revisional Court keeping in mind the observation as made in this judgment. 17. Parties are to bear their own costs. Petition Allowed. ———