JUDGMENT Hon’ble Mrs. Poonam Srivastav, J.—Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The instant writ petition is listed for admission. Counter and rejoinder affidavits have been exchanged. Counsels for the respective parties have agreed that the writ petition may be decided finally at the stage of admission itself. After completing the arguments, written submissions were also filed. 3. The judgment and orders impugned in the instant writ petition are dated 28.12.1991 and 11.1.1999 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Deoria allowing revision No. 101-221/1589, Vijay Bahadur and others v. Om Prakash and others, as well as rejecting the recall application on behalf of the petitioners against the judgment and order dated 28.12.1991. 4. When the consolidation proceedings commenced Sri Tapsi, father of respondent Nos. 2 and 3 and Sri Phullan Prasad respondent No. 4 filed their objections in respect of plot No. 52 area 0.38 decimal and plot No. 54 area 0.04 decimal of Khata No. 29 situated in village Harraiya, Tappa Salempur, Pargana Salempur Majauli, District Deoria. In the basic year Khatauni, names of Mahatam and Ram Chandra Lal were recorded. Perusal of the order of the Consolidation Officer shows that objector respondents adduced oral as well as documentary evidence. Phullan Prasad and Mangal son of Dukhi deposed in favour of respondents and documentary evidence filed was extract of Khatauni 1302 Fasli, Fard Matabiqat pertaining to1324 Fasli, extract Khatauni 1324 Fasli, extract Khatauni 1355 to 1359 Fasli, copy of map pertaining to the year 1916-17 as well as map of 1883-84. An Advocate Commissioner was also got appointed who submitted a report after making spot inspection on 12.10.1971. The Consolidation Officer himself had made spot inspection in presence of both the parties and report was dated 27.7.1971. The petitioners did not adduce any documentary evidence but examined Ram Mahatam Lal as a witness. The Consolidation Officer recorded his finding that on plot No. 52 at the time of spot inspection he found abadi only in an area of 0.08 decimal and 0.06 decimal (0.14 decimal). On the remaining portion a house was standing as well as some trees but he recorded a finding that it cannot be defined as ‘abadi’. Thus the finding of the Consolidation Officer was that .14 decimal is abadi on plot No. 52 and remaining .24 decimal is not an abadi. On the remaining portion a house was standing as well as some trees but he recorded a finding that it cannot be defined as ‘abadi’. Thus the finding of the Consolidation Officer was that .14 decimal is abadi on plot No. 52 and remaining .24 decimal is not an abadi. So far the objections only for the said area was allowed and objection of Tapsi Lal was rejected for the remaining portion. An appeal was preferred by Tapsi and Phullan Prasad against the petitioners. The Settlement Officer Consolidation examined extract of Khatauni 1355 to 1359 Fasli only and confirmed the finding of the Consolidation Officer. Though he has recorded arguments raised on behalf of respondents that previous litigation had also taken place in respect of gata Nos. 52 and 54 and it was held as abadi of the respondents but somehow due to mistake the names of the petitioners have been recorded over the said plots and finally rejected the appeal. A revision was preferred by the respondents under Section 48 of the Act before the Deputy Director of Consolidation which was allowed vide order dated 28.12.1991. 5. The petitioner Om Prakash preferred a recall application on 30.12.1991 and another recall application was preferred by Satya Prakash and Vijay Prakash and Smt. Kunti Devi on 19.8.1996 stating therein that the impugned order dated 28.12.1991 was passed without hearing them and they were not aware about the date fixed and, therefore, they may be given another opportunity of hearing. The Deputy Director of Consolidation heard the respective parties at length and finding was recorded that the original order dated 28.12.1991 shows that the counsel for both the parties were heard. It is also mentioned in the order that the reference were looked into and all the legal arguments were discussed and thereafter certain alterations were made in the appellate order passed by the Settlement Officer Consolidation and thus there is no difference or anomaly in the order sheet of the Deputy Director of Consolidation Court. The order dated 20.11.1991 on record also mentions that learned counsels for the respective parties have agreed to submit their written submissions. However, the petitioners had also moved transfer application but the Deputy Director of Consolidation declined to summon transfer application and finally rejected two applications by a well discussed and reasoned order. The order dated 20.11.1991 on record also mentions that learned counsels for the respective parties have agreed to submit their written submissions. However, the petitioners had also moved transfer application but the Deputy Director of Consolidation declined to summon transfer application and finally rejected two applications by a well discussed and reasoned order. In fact the petitioners in the garb of recall wanted a review of the order of the Deputy Director Consolidation which is not permissible in law. A Full Bench of Allahabad High Court after taking into consideration several decisions held that consolidation authorities have no power to review their final order. This was clearly held in the case of Smt. Shivraji v. D.D.C., Allahabad, 1997 RD 562 . In the case of P.N. Thakershi v. Pradyaman Singh, AIR 1970 SC 1273 , it was held that power of review is not an inherent power. It must be conferred by law either specifically or by necessary implication. In the circumstances, I am of the considered view that the order dated 11.1.1999 passed on two recall applications does not call for any interference whatsoever. 6. Now I proceed to examine the order of the Deputy Director of Consolidation dated 28.12.1991. Copies of the spot inspection have been annexed as Annexures-1 and 2 to the writ petition. The judgment of the Consolidation Officer clearly mentions a number of documents adduced in evidence as well as the oral evidence led by contesting respondents whereas the petitioners only examined Ram Mahatam Lal but not a single document was annexed in support of their contentions. The Consolidation Officer as well as Settlement Officer Consolidation have given their findings without even looking into the various revenue extracts brought on record but they did record their observations on the two reports of spot inspection. I have perused the two reports, one submitted by Advocate Commissioner and other by the Consolidation Officer himself. The Deputy Director of Consolidation has discussed in detail regarding constructions on two plots and he has specifically considered that no objection whatsoever was preferred against two spot inspections. So far extract of Khatauni and other documentary evidence has also been taken into consideration by the Deputy Director Consolidation and, therefore, I do not think that he has committed any error much less jurisdictional error as pointed out by learned counsel for the petitioners. So far extract of Khatauni and other documentary evidence has also been taken into consideration by the Deputy Director Consolidation and, therefore, I do not think that he has committed any error much less jurisdictional error as pointed out by learned counsel for the petitioners. It is not a case where finding of fact has been set aside without there being any other material on record. This is a case where the Consolidation Officer as well as the Settlement Officer Consolidation have completely maintained silence regarding evidence brought on record by the respondents. Both of them failed to express any opinion or assess the evidence, though a complete list of documentary and oral evidence is enumerated in the order of Consolidation Officer. All those documents were before the Deputy Director Consolidation and he had jurisdiction to examine the documents which were overlooked by the subordinate authorities. 7. In the instant case, the Deputy Director of Consolidation has not assumed the jurisdiction of fact finding authority but the Apex Court on a number of occasions has held that the revisional Court has a complete authority to examine the correctness, legality or propriety of an order while examining the decisions and orders of its subordinate authority. I am also conscious of the fact that before Amending Act No. 8 of 1963, scope of Section 48 was akin to Section 115 C.P.C. but the amendment of U.P. Act No. 8 of 1963 scope of revisional power has definitely extended. In the case of Sher Singh v. Joint Director of Consolidation, AIR 1978 SC 1341 , this question has been dealt in detail. 8. It is true that the word ‘propriety’ does not mean that the revisional Court should enter into re-appreciation of evidence but in the instant case the consolidation authorities completely overlooked the evidence and failed to even consider the fact that two inspection reports are eloquent of the fact that there are constructions on both the plots and they were recorded abadi and, therefore, it is not a case where the finding of fact has been interfered with. It is a case where evidence on record has been ignored and it amounts to an error apparent on the face of record or it can very well be said that the Consolidation Officer as well as Settlement Officer Consolidation failed to exercise its jurisdiction to discuss documentary evidence as well as oral evidence that was brought before them. 9. The Apex Court in the case of Shanti Prasad Gupta v. Dy. Director of Consolidation, 1981 (Supp.) SCC 73, has observed that the powers of the Director under Section 48 of the Act are wider than those mentioned in Section 115 C.P.C. However, an embargo was laid that the Director cannot lightly interfere with the discretion of the Consolidation Officer, unless the order sought to be revised is clearly erroneous or is likely to cause gross miscarriage of justice. 10. In the instant case, I am of the view that the facts of the present case are completely covered by the aforesaid decision. Thus from perusal of the aforesaid observations and findings given by the Deputy Director Consolidation, Deoria, it is clear that learned authority not only considered the two inspection reports which was never disputed by any other parties but rather admitted by them, clearly found that the said land was not a grove land belonging to the petitioners but was part of the residential abadi land belonging to the contesting respondents. In fact the report of Advocate Commissioner was not merely a spot inspection report but was a survey report wherein exact and specific measurement of the concerned plots were duly recorded. The contention of the petitioners that the impugned order was passed without giving them any opportunity of hearing is also baseless and has no substance. In fact a detailed order was passed on the two recall applications which were rejected and have already discussed in the earlier part of this judgment. 11. So far arguments of the respondents that the writ petition filed on 22.4.1999 challenging the impugned order of the year 1991 is highly belated and suffers from the vice of delay and latches. In fact a detailed order was passed on the two recall applications which were rejected and have already discussed in the earlier part of this judgment. 11. So far arguments of the respondents that the writ petition filed on 22.4.1999 challenging the impugned order of the year 1991 is highly belated and suffers from the vice of delay and latches. Reliance has been placed on a recent decision of the Apex Court in the case of Yunus (Baboobhai) A. Hamid Padvekar v. State of Maharashtra and others, (2009) 3 SCC 281 , wherein it was held that : “Delay and latches is one of the factors which is to be borne in mind by the High Court when they exercise their discretionary powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In an appropriate case, the High Court may refuse to invoke its extra ordinary powers if there is such negligence or omission on the part of the applicant to assert his right as taken it conjunction with the lapse of time and other circumstances, causes prejudice to the opposite party.” 12. Reliance has also been placed on several decisions; State of M.P. v. Nandlal Jaiswal, (1986) 4 SCC 566 , Rabindra Nath Bose v. Union of India, (1970) 1 SCC 84 , Durga Prasad v. Controller of Import and Exports, (1969) 1 SCC 185 and S.S. Balu and another v. State of Kerala and others, (2009) 2 SCC 479 . 13. In view of the above discussions, it is clear that there is no infirmity or illegality in the order passed by the Deputy Director Consolidation, Deoria dated 28.12.1991 and 11.1.1999 and the same have been passed after according proper opportunity of hearing to the parties while appreciating the evidence available on record and the petitioners have failed to establish any case, much less a prima facie case, warranting any interference by this Hon’ble Court in exercise of extra ordinary jurisdiction and the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. 14. For the reasons discussed above, the writ petition lacks merit and is accordingly dismissed. ————