Judgment 1. Heard. 2. By this writ petition, the petitioners have challenged the order dated 29.9.1995 purported to be an order under Section 35 of the Consolidation Act passed by the Deputy Director, Consolidation in favour of respondent no. 5, who has since appeared. She had not received not consideration and as such the sale deed ought to have been cancelled. It was also alleged that in fact the transaction was not in continuance of sale but a simple mutation and deceitfully the sale deed was drawn up. The Consolidation Officer accepted the objection raised by respondent no. 5 and refused mutation. The petitioners then filed an appeal before the Deputy Director, Consolidation where they succeeded with a finding that the petitioners had rightfully acquired title and were entitled to get their names mutated. Against this order, respondent no. 5 filed a revision application under Section 35 of the Act before the Director, Consolidation. Who delegated the hearing to the Deputy Director, Consolidation. This time, the Deputy Director, Consolidation, allowed the revision application setting aside the order of the Deputy Director passed in appeal. 3. The petitioners have challenged the proceedings on two counts. Firstly, on the pleadings, as made by respondent no. 5, that, in fact, mutation is sought to be without asking for delivering up of documents and cancelling the same on grounds of fraud and non-payment of consideration. This power exclusively vests in Civil Court and is not vested with the Consolidation Court. Secondly that once a revision was filed, the same has to be heard and disposed of by the Director himself. He could not transfer the matter to the Deputy Director, so as to permit a Deputy Director sitting in revision to set aside an order of another Deputy Director sitting in appeal. More so, there being no power authorising the Director to delegate the powers of revision to the Dy. Director documents are to be delivered up, considered and/or cancelled or the documents that may be voidable and where the necessity is to cancel the document and not mere declaration of its voidness, it is the jurisdiction only of the civil court. 4. In the present case, the documents could not be declared void. It had to be delivered up and cancelled which jurisdiction is not with the Consolidation authority but of civil court of competent jurisdiction alone. 4. In the present case, the documents could not be declared void. It had to be delivered up and cancelled which jurisdiction is not with the Consolidation authority but of civil court of competent jurisdiction alone. In that view of the matter the order to the contrary passed by the Deputy Director cannot be sustained. The second submission is equally well made. It is well settled that when a quasi judicial function is settled on an authority unless, there is some specific statutory provision authorising delegation or transfer it to any authority, the authority has no power to delegate its function. In the present case nothing has been shown to the court in support of the authorisation to delegate and/or transfer the revision in terms of Section 35 of the Act. Moreover, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case it would be seen that by this court of unauthorised delegation what has been done is that the Deputy Director sitting in revision is setting aside the order of Deputy Director sitting in appeal. This is impermissible. The revisional jurisdiction is a jurisdiction for correcting of an error superintendence to be exercised by higher authority with respect to the jurisdiction of an inferior authority. Here the Deputy (sic Director ?) sitting in appeal is in no manner subordinate to the Deputy Director sitting in revision as a delegatee. 5. For the reasons aforesaid, the present writ petition is allowed and the orders of the Consolidation Officer impugning the transaction are set aside. 6. However, it may be observed that a party aggrieved with the direction in any manner may approach the competent jurisdiction in this regard.