JUDGMENT : Hon’ble Alok Singh, J. (Oral) Present petition is preferred assailing the judgment and order dated 9.2.2004 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation/Additional Collector, Haridwar, whereby revisions filed by Mani Ram/respondent no. 4 and Madan Singh/respondent no. 5 were allowed. 2. Brief facts of the present case, inter alia, are that petitioner was the land holder/bhumidhar of the original holding of khasra No. 10/5, 155/2, 157 and was co-bhumidhar of the original khasra no. 230 of Village Dhanauri, District Haridwar, while respondent no. 4 Mani Ram was the original tenure holder of khasra no. 105, co-tenure holder to the extent of half share of khasra no. 104 as well as 230 and his entire share was 2.99 hectare; while respondent no. 5 Madan Singh was original tenure holder of khasra no. 255, 157 and co-bhumidhar of khasra no. 230. 3. Respondent no. 4 preferred objection under Section 9 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act stating therein that chak no. 257 was proposed for respondent no. 4 while chak no. 162 was proposed for Smt. Champa Devi including most of the area of original khasra no. 230 in Chak No.162, while his proposed chak no. 257 should also include same part land of khasra no. 230 as well, since he was also co-2 bhumidar of Khasra No.230. Objection, so filed by respondent no. 4, was rejected, vide judgment/order dated 17.1.2002 by the Consolidation Officer. It is important to mention herein that respondent no. 4 did not raise any objection against the proposed chak of the petitioner or area included therein. Respondent no. 5 has also preferred objection before the Consolidation Officer under Section 9 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act saying that his proposed chak should also include his original holding of khasra no. 230, since, he was also co-bhumidhar of khasra No.230. Objection, so filed by respondent no. 5, too, came to be dismissed by the Consolidation Officer, vide judgment and order dated 17.1.2002. 4. Respondent no. 4 challenged the order dated 17.1.2002 thereby rejecting his objection under Section 9 of the Act before the Appellate Authority, while respondent no. 5 did not opt to file any appeal and allowed the order dated 17.1.2002 against him to attain finality. Appeal so filed by respondent no. 4 was also dismissed by the Settlement Officer (Consolidation), vide order dated 24.8.2002. 5. 5 did not opt to file any appeal and allowed the order dated 17.1.2002 against him to attain finality. Appeal so filed by respondent no. 4 was also dismissed by the Settlement Officer (Consolidation), vide order dated 24.8.2002. 5. Against the judgment and order dated 24.8.2002 passed by the Appellate Authority, respondent nos. 4 & 5 preferred revision under Section 48 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act before the Deputy Director, Consolidation/Collector, Haridwar and vide impugned judgment and order, revisions so filed were allowed making modification and alteration in the chaks as proposed by the Consolidation Officer and confirmed by the Appellate Authority. 6. Since, neither respondent no. 4 nor respondent no. 5 have preferred any objection under Section 9 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act against the proposed chak of the petitioner as well as area included therein, nor both of them have raised any objection against the chak of 3 the petitioner in appeal, therefore, it was not open to the respondent Nos. 4 and 5 to challenge the chaks of the petitioner, for the first time in Revision, nor Deputy Director, Consolidation, while exercising the revisional jurisdiction under Section 48 of the Act, to make alteration in the proposed chak of the petitioner by examining the facts de novo. 7. Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Ram Dular v. Dy. Director of Consolidation reported in 1994 Supp. (2) SCC 198, in paragraph no. 3, has held as under : “3. The question, therefore, is whether the Deputy Director of Consolidation was legally justified in upsetting the findings recorded by the Consolidation Officer and the Settlement Officer. It is true that the finding whether Jokhu and Sampath are sons of Angan is a finding of fact and that the authorities are entitled to consider that question. But while exercising the revisional power under Section 48, what requires to be seen is, whether the Deputy Director has considered the question in its proper perspective or had ignored any material evidence on record in coming to the said conclusion. Section 48 reads thus: “48. But while exercising the revisional power under Section 48, what requires to be seen is, whether the Deputy Director has considered the question in its proper perspective or had ignored any material evidence on record in coming to the said conclusion. Section 48 reads thus: “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 he thinks fit.” It is clear that the Director had power to satisfy himself as to the legality of the proceedings or as to the correctness of the proceedings or correctness, legality or propriety of any order other than interlocutory order passed by the authorities under the Act. But in considering the correctness, legality or propriety of the order or correctness of the proceedings or regularity thereof it cannot assume to itself the jurisdiction of the original authority as a fact-finding authority by appreciating for itself of those facts de novo. It has to consider whether the legally admissible evidence had not been considered by the authorities in recording a finding of fact or law or the conclusion reached by it is based on no evidence, any patent illegality or impropriety had been committed or there was any procedural irregularity, which goes to the rest (sic root) of the matter, had been committed in recording the order or finding. 8. Judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Ram Dular (supra) was referred and relied upon in the subsequent judgments of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Seshmani and another v. Deputy Director of Consolidation, District Basti, U.P. and others reported in (2000) 2 SCC 523 , Gaya Din (D) through LRs and others v. Hanuman Prasad (D) through LRs and others reported in (2001) 1 SCC 501 as well as Ram, Avadh and others v. Ram Das and others reported in (2008) 8 SCC 58 . Thus, the settled position of law which emerges from the above judgments of Hon’ble Apex Court is that revisional authority while exercising the power under Section 48 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, has no jurisdiction to interfere with the findings of the subordinate authority unless same is found to be perverse in the sense that same is not supported by the evidence brought on record or is against the law or suffered from the vice of the procedural irregularity. Revisional Authority cannot assume power of the fact finding authority by appreciating himself facts de novo. 9. In view of the above, I find that while passing the impugned judgment, revisional authority/Deputy Director of Consolidation has exceeded its jurisdiction. Therefore, judgment impugned does not sustain in the eyes of law. 10. Consequently, petition succeeds and is hereby allowed. Impugned judgment is hereby set aside and that of Consolidation Officer is hereby restored.