JUDGMENT Saurabh Shyam Shamshery, J. Heard Sri I.N. Singh, learned counsel for petitioner, Sri Pradeep Kumar Rai, learned counsel for contesting respondent and learned Standing Counsel for State. 2. The facts in brief of present case are as follows :- (i) The land in dispute is 3 Bigha 19 biswas 0 dhur of plot No. 827 situated in village Malethi, District Ghazipur. The owner of the said plot were Dharmdeo, Bihar and Subedar, all sons of Ram Raj. (ii) The consolidation operations commenced and publication under Section 9 of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as, "Act, 1953"), was issued on 02.12.1995. Subsequently, on 13.12.1996, the owners of land in dispute executed a sale-deed in favour of petitioner, a copy thereof is annexed along with supplementary counter affidavit. (iii) The petitioner and her sons filed three objections under Section 9- A of Act, 1953, on the ground that plot No.821/1, area 1 bigha 3 biswa and 8 dhur was purchased by them and since said land is uncultivated and adjacent to roadside, therefore, being commercial in nature may not be included in consolidation operations. (iv) The Consolidation Officer by an order dated 18.10.1997 allowed objections filed by petitioners and held that the gata No.827/1, area 1 bigha 3 biswa and 8 dhur, was affected with canal and being submerged under water, therefore, liable to be excluded from the consolidation proceedings. (iv) The Consolidation Officer by an order dated 18.10.1997 allowed objections filed by petitioners and held that the gata No.827/1, area 1 bigha 3 biswa and 8 dhur, was affected with canal and being submerged under water, therefore, liable to be excluded from the consolidation proceedings. The relevant part of order is mentioned hereinafter :- ^^dsl ua0 & 142/143+143+145 /kkjk 9 d¼2½ ;w-ih-lh-,p- vf/k0 vkt i=koyh la[;k 142] 143 o 145 ,oa fofo/k c;ku gYQh ,d lkFk is'k gqbZ mijksDr lHkh i=koyh ,d nwljs ls lEcfU/kr gSA lHkh dks ,d lkFk ,d vkbZ djds lquokbZ dh x;h] vkifrdrkZ dh Hkjr xksiky] fursUnz o Jherh equs'pjh iRuh iapo o 4 [k xksiky iq= iape rFkk vk;Z us vkifRr fd;k gS fd xkVk la[;k&120 dh ekfy;r 30 ds ctk;s 60 o 70 fd;k tk;s Jherh equs'pjh iRuh ipae 827 jdok 1 ch?kk 3 foLok 8 /kqj tks cSukes dh Hkwfe gS pd ckgj fd;k tk;s Jh Hkjr xksiky us vkifRr fd;k gS fd xkVk la[;k&152 dh ekfy;r 20 iSls ls vf/kd c<+k;k tk;s iape us vkifRr fd;k gS fd xkVk la[;k&227@ ds ikWap fcLok dh ekfy;r yxk;h tk;sa] xzke ds vfHkys[k dk voyksdu fd;k x;k vkSj ik;k fd xkVk la[;k 120@1 ds vkl&ikl dh ekfy;r xkVk la[;k&119@] o 121 dh ekfy;r 40 o 50 iSlk fu/kkZfjr gS mldh rqyuk esa xkVk la[;k 20 dh ekfy;r de yxkbZ x;h gSA 2- xkVk la[;k&827@1] jdok A ch?kk 3 fcLok 8 /kwj ugj ls izHkkfor o tyeXu jgrk gS pd ckgj gksus ;ksX; gSA 3- xkVk la[;k&152 ds vklikl ds [ksrksa dh ekfy;r xkVk la[;k 152 dh ekfy;r de yxk;h x;h gSaA 4- xkVk la[;k 277@1 uydwi dk;ZcUn gks x;k gSA pd ckgj gksuk pkfg;sA mijksDr foospuk ds vk/kkj ij vkns'k gqvk fd xkVk la[;k 120@1] 247i dh ekfy;r 20 ds LFkku ij 40] xkVk la[;k 827@1] jdck 1 ch?kk 3 fcLok 8 /kwj pd ckgj o xkVk la[;k 152 dh ekfy;r 20 iSlk ds LFkku ij 30 iSlk o xkVk la0 277@2 jdok 5 foLok pd ckgj ds LFkku ij ekfy;r 60 iSlk ntZ gks vkns'k okn la[;k&142] 143] 145 ij Hkh ykxw gksuk i=koyh nkf[ky nWQ~rj gksA** (Emphasis Supplied) (v) The respondents herein being aggrieved by above order filed a belated appeal (i.e. after four years) mainly on ground that, in case, land in dispute was directed to be excluded from consolidation proceedings, passage to their chak would be affected. The relevant paragraphs of memo of appeal are reproduced hereinafter :- ^^nQk & 2 ;g fd xkVk la[;k&827 ds lHkh cgh dh ekfy;r yxk;h x;h gSA rFkk xkVk la[;k&827@9 dh ekfy;r u yxkdj pdcUnh ckgj djus dk vf/kuLFk U;k;ky; dk vkns'k pdcUnh ckgj djus dk vf/kuLFk U;k;ky; dk vkns'k pdcUnh izkfo/kku ds fu;eksa ds fo:) rFkk vkS/kksfxr xSj dkuwuh rFkk gj gkyr esa fujLr gksus ;ksX; gSA nQk&3 ;g fd xkVk la[;k&827@9 dks pd ckgj djus ls ge vihy drkZ x.k dk jkLrk izHkkfor gksxkA D;ksafd xkVk la[;k 827] 287@9] 828 ds nf{k.k rjQ ugj foHkkx dh dkyksuh cuh gSA tks ckgj fnokjh ls f?kjh gSA D;k muls lVk ekStk] cnqiqj gSA rFkk dz; lHkh ogh ,ao mlds vxy cxy ds lHkh uEcjksa dh ekfy;r yxk;h x;h gSA rFkk ;gka ,d xkVk 287@9&@11@38 pdcUnh ckgj djus dk dksbZ pdcUnh izkfo/kku ds vUrxZr dksbZ dkj.k ugha gSA flQZ foi{kuh dks uktk;t ykHk nsus ds fy, v/khuLFk U;k;ky; }kjk xyr vkns'k ikfjr fd;k x;k gSA mls gj gkyr esa fujLr gksus ;ksX; gSA D;ksafd xkVk la[;k 827@1 dks pd ckgj djus dks vihy vUrxZr dk pd ,oa jkLrk izHkkfor gks jgk gSA rFkk vf/kdj.k U;k;ky; dk vkns'k dkuwu ds foijhr ,oa gj gkyr esa fujLr gksus ;ksX; gSA** (Emphasis Supplied) (vi) The Settlement Officer Consolidation after considering rival submissions, dismissed the appeal by an order dated 29.3.2003, mainly on ground that there was no sufficient cause to condone delay of four years as well as the respondents failed to prove that in case, land in dispute was to be excluded from the consolidation proceedings, it would affect passage to their land. The relevant part of order is mentioned hereinafter :- ^^vihydrkZx.k dk ;g dFku gS fd pdcUnh izkfo/kku ds vUrxZr tksrus cksus ;ksX; Hkwfe dks pd ckgj djus dks dksbZ izkfo/kku ugha gSA tgka rd lMd ds fdukjs dkWef'kZ;y Hkwfe gksus dk iz'u gS] ewy [kkrsnkj cklw vkfn ds fy;s ;g Hkwfe dkWef'kZ;y ugha Fkh vkSj tc bl Hkwfe dk cSukek equs'pjh us ys fy;k rks ;g Hkwfe O;olkf;d egRo dh gks xbZ vkSj pdcUnh vf/kdkjh us equsljh dks uktk;t ykHk igqpkus ds fy;s bl Hkwfe dks pdkcUnh ckgj dj fn;k gSA vihydrkZx.k ds bl dFku esa cy ugha ik;k tkrk gS D;ksafd lMd ds fdukjs dh Hkwfe pkgs og tksrh cksbZ tkrh gks vFkok ugha dks pdcUnh ckgj djus dk izkfo/kku gS D;ksafd lMd ds fdukjs gksus ls mldk O;olkf;d egRo jgrk gSA bl izdkj pdcanh vf/kdkjh us bl Hkwfe dks pdcUnh ckgj djds xyrh ugh fd;k gS vihydrkZx.k dk ;g dFku fd xkVk la[;k 827@1 dks pdcUnh ckgj djus ds jkLrk izHkkfor gksxk] xyr gS D;ksafd muds pd ij vkus&tkus ds fy;s mRrj ls pdjksM fn;k x;k gS tks iDdh lMd ls yxk gqvk gSA tgka rd vihy esa foyEc dh NwV nsus dk iz'u gS] bl lEcU/k esa fn;s x;s izkFkZuk i= dk izfroknh mRrj okfnuh dh rjQ ls izfr'kiFk vkifr izLrqr djds fd;k x;k gSA vihy yxHkx pkj lky foyEc ls nkf[ky dh xbZ gSA ftldk dksbZ vkSfpR; izrhr ugha gksrk gSA vr% vihy esa foyEc dk tks dkj.k fn;k x;k gS og fo'oluh; ugha gS vkSj vihy esa foyEc dh NwV ugha nh tkrh gSA** (Emphasis Supplied) (vii) In the above circumstances, the respondents preferred a revision petition before Revisional Authority mainly on following grounds :- ^^1 & ;g fd vkns'k vnkyr ekrgr f[kykQ dkuqu o f[kykQ okD;kr gS rFkk fujLr gksus ;ksX; gSA 2 & ;g fd vk0 ua0&828 ge fuxjkuh drkZ dk lcls cMk ewy gSa vkSj ;gh gekjk jgu&lgu o [kfygku gksrk gSaA 3 & ;g fd vk0 ua0&828 ls lVs if'pe vk0 ua0&827 gSA vk0 ua0 827 ds iwjk jdck 999 ,vj la0 p0 v0 Lrj ij 40 iSlk ekfy;r dk;e dh x;h gSA 4 & ;g fd ekfy;r yxk;s tkus ds ckn vk0ua0&827 ls 1&3&8 ch?kk mRrjnk;h us dz; dj fy;k vkSj cSukesa ds ckn equsljh us /kkjk 9 c-lh-,p- ,DV esa vkifRr fd;k vk0ua0 & 827@1 jdok 1&3&8 ch?kk dh pdcUnh fdz;k ls izFkd dj fn;k D;ksafd ;g ugj ds ikuh ls tyeXu jgrk gS vkSj p0v0 us fcuk ekSdk ns[ks o fcuk ekSds dh fjiksVZ eaxk;s o fcuk vfHkys[k ns[ks vk0ua0 827 esa u;k crk 827@1 dk;e djds mls pdcUnh vf/kdkjh us vius vkns'k fnukad 18-10-97 }kjk pdcUnh fdz;k ls izFkd dj fn;kA 5 & ;g fd p0v0 ds vkns'k fnukad 18-10-97 ds fo:) geus vihy nkf[ky fd;k vkSj l0o0v0p0 us fcuk rF; o dkuwu dh foospuk fd, gekjh vihy dh fnuakd 27-03-2003 dks fujLr dj fn;k ftlds fo:) ;g fuxjkuh dh tk jgh gSA 6 & ;g fd dkuwuh i{k ;g gS fd D;k equsljh dks ftlus ekfy;r yxkus ds ckn vkjkth ustkbZ dk cSukek fy;k mls vkjkth ustkbZ dks pdcUnh ckgj djus gsrq vkifRr djus dk vf/kdkj FkkA 7 & ;g fd nwljk fcUnw ;g iSnk gksrk gS fd D;k p0v0 /kkjk 9 ch-lh-,p- ,DV esa fdlh xkVs dh pdcUnh ckgj djus dk vkns'k ikfjr dj ldrs gSaA 8 & ;g fd rhljk fcUnq ;g iSnk gksrk gS fd D;k vk0 ua0&827 dh mDr csVs esa ckx ;k vkcknh ;k vU; dksbZ ,slh leqUurh fLFkr gS ftlds dkj.k mls pdcUnh ckgj fd;k tk;sA 9 & ;g fd bu rhuksa fcUnqvksa ij p0v0o l0 o v0p0 us fcuk xkSj fd, vkns'k ikfjr djds ljhgh Hkwy fd;k gSA 10 & ;g fd vk0ua0&827 dk iwjk jdok 3&19&0 ftlesa cVokjs dk vFkok caVk dk;e djus dk dksbZ vkns'k l0p0v0 o p0v0 us ugha ikfjr fd;k gS vkSj vkdkj i= 2 d esa dksbZ Hkh cVk dk;e ugha gSa rFkk iwjs jdos dh ekfy;r yxh gS rks rFkk ekfy;r yxs jdcs dk cSukek lqusljh esa fy;k gSA cSukek ds iwoZ vkjkth ustkbZ dh tks fLFkr Fkh mlh dk ekfyd equsljh gqbZ mls pdcUnh fdz;k ls i`Fkd djkus dk vf/kdkj izkIr ugha gqvk D;ksafd tc ekfy;r yxh vkSj /kkjk 5 lh-,p ,sDV dk forj.k gqvk mlds 21 fnu ds vUnj ewy [kkrs vkifRr dj ldrk gS dokys nkj ugha vkSj 21 fnu lekIr gksus ds ckn tc vf/kdkj cSukes ds vk/kkj ij feyrk gS rks og drkZ pdcUnh fdz;k ls i`Fkd djus ds fy, vkifRr ugha dj ldrk gSA 11 & ;g fd ewY;kadu yxkus o pdcUnh fdz;k ls i`Fkd djus dh vkifRr /kkjk 3v¼2½ ess gksrh gSA /kkjk 9 ¼c½ esa ugha gksrh gSa bl izdkj Hkh lh-vks- dk vkns'k {ks=kf/kdkj ls ckgj gSA 12 & ;g fd vkSj fouk; ij p0v0 vkns'k fnukad 18-10-97 o vkns'k l0o0v0p0 fnukad 27-03-2003 fujLr gksus ;ksX; gSA** (viii) The Revisional Authority vide an order dated 15.07.2003 allowed the revision petition filed by respondent and impugned orders therein passed by Consolidation Officer and Settlement Officer Consolidation were set aside. The relevant part of order is reproduced hereinafter :- ^^i{kksa ds rdksZ ds lkis{k i=koyh dk iqu% voyksdu fd;k x;kA equslj us fnukad 14-08-96 dks xkVk la0 & 827 jdck 1&19&0 esa ls jdck 1&3&8 dks pdcUnh fdz;k ls i`Fkd djus gsrq vkifRr izLrqr fd;k gSa ftl ij pdcUnh vf/kdkjh us u rks fjiksVZ ekaxk gS vkSj Loa; LFky fujh{k.k fd;k gSa] cfYd xSj ftEesnkjkuk <+ax ls vkifRr ds vk/kkj dk fcuk voyksdu fd;s vkjkth futkbZ dks ugj ls izHkkfor ekudj pd ckgj dj fn;k gS equsljh dh vkifRr esa ekax fd;k x;k gS fd vcknh cukus gsrq vk0ua0 827 esa ls 1&3&8 dk cSukek fy;k gS vr% mls pd ckgj fd;k tk;sA vkifRr esa fy[kk x;k vk/kkj fdlh Hkwfe dks pdcUnh fdz;k ls i`Fkd djus dk vk/kkj ugha gSA pdcUnh fdz;k ls i`Fkd djus dk vk/kkj dsoy ,d gh gS fd mDr Hkwfe vkd`f"kd gks] vFkkZr mlesa d`f"k fd;k tkuk lEHko gksA cgl ds nkSjku nksuks i{kksa us Lohdkj fd;k fd vk0ua0&827 ugj ls dkQh nwj gSa] tyIykfor ugha gSA vkifRr drkZ equsljh dh vkifRr ij Hkh /;ku fn;k tk;s fd mlus edku cukus gsrq Hkwfe dz; fd;k gSa] fuf'pr :i ls dksbZ O;fDr tyIykfor Hkwfe esa edku ugha cukuk pkgsxkA pdcUnh vf/kdkjh dk vkns'k fof/kfo:) rFkk ekSds ds fo:) gSA lgk;d cUnkscLr vf/kdkjh pdcUnh us fuxjkuh drkZ ds rdZ o pdcUnh vf/kdkjh ds vkns'k ,oa equsljh dh vkifRr ij /;ku fn;s fcuk ,oa miyC/k vfHkys[kksa ij /;ku fn;s cuk vkns'k ikfjr fd;k gSA tks dk;e j[kus ;ksX; ugha gSA fuxjkuh esa cy gSA** (Emphasis Supplied) (ix) The petitioner herein being aggrieved, filed a restoration application before Revisional Authority on 24.7.2003, however, the same was dismissed by an order dated 14.8.2003 and relevant part thereof is mentioned hereinafter :- ^^eSaus i=koyh ij miyC/k vihyh; U;k;ky; ds fu.kZ; fnukad 27-03-2003 vkSj bl U;k;ky; ds fueZ; fnukad 15-07-2003 dk iqujh{k.k fd;kA lgk;d cUnkscLr vf/kdkjh pdcUnh ds fu.kZ; fnuakd 27-03-2003 esa vihy dk fuLrkj.k iw.kZ foospuk ds vk/kkj ij fd;k x;k gS tks xq.k&nks"k ij vk/kkfjr gS vkSj xq.k&nks"k ds vk/kkj ij foospuk djus ds mijkUr vafre ifDr;ksa esa fe;kn ds fcUnq dks foosfpr fd;k gSA vkSj vihy dh fe;kn vkSj xq.k nks"k nksuksa vk/kkj ij fujLr fd;k gSA fe;kn dk fcUnq ,d ,slk fcUnq gS ftldks mBk;s tkus dh n'kk mldk izFker% foospuk misf{kr gksrk gSA D;ksafd tc ,d ckj fe;kn dk fcUnq mB x;k rks fcuk fe;kn dk ykHk fn;s xq.k&nks"k ij foospuk vkSj vkns'k ikfjr ugha fd;k tk ldrk gSA ,slk ugha gks ldrk gSA fd fe;kn dk ykHk Hkh u fn;k tk; vkSj xq.k&nks"k ij foospuk vkSj fu.kZ; Hkh fn;k tk;A fe;kn dk fcUnq og }kj gS ftlls gksdj xq.k nks"k dh foospuk dk dze U;kf;d fu.kZ; ds ifjlj esa izos'k ikrk gS fdUrq ;fn ,d ckj xq.k nks"k ds vk/kkj ij fu.khZr gks x;k rks fe;kn ds fcUnq ij ykHk feyus dk rF; mlesa Lor% vuqL;r gks tkrk gS Hkys gh mDr fcUnq ij fu.kZ; 'kkUr gks vFkok foijhr gSA vihyh; fueZ; fnukad 27-03-2003 esa vihy dks lEiw.kZr% xq.k nks"k ij foosfpr fd;k x;k gS vr% foyEc Hk"kZ.k dk fcUnq blesa ldkjkRed :i ls vuqL;wr ekuk tk;sxkA vihyh; U;k;ky; dk fofyEc Hkkx ds fcUnq ij ikfjr vkns'k udkjkRed vkSj muds xq.k nks"k ij ikfjr vkns'kks dks var fojks/kh gSA vr% izHkkoghu gSA pwWafd vihy xq.k nks"k ij fuLrkfjr gS vkSj fe;kn dk ykHk ldkjkRed :i ls vuqL;wr gS vr% bl U;k;ky; eas fuxjkuh fe;kn ds vUnj izLrqr dh x;h Fkh vkSj fuxjkuh drkZ }kjk fe;kn dk ykHk Hkh ugh ekaxk x;k FkkA blds vfrfjDr pwafd bl U;k;ky; esa fuxjkuh dk fuLrkj.k xq.k nks"k ds vk/kkj ij fd;k x;k gS vr% fe;kn ds fcUnq ij vkns'k 'kkUr gksus ds vuqdze esa ;g rF; iwodfYir ¼izhT;wEM½ gS fd fe;kn ds fcUnq ij ldkjkRed fu.kZ; ysus ds mijkUr gh ;g U;k;ky; xq.k nks"k dh foospuk esa izo`r gqvkA tgka rd ewY;kafdr Hkwfe ij equs'pjh dks psd izfn"V djus ds lEcU/k es funsZ'k nsus dk iz'u gS] bl lEcU/k esa pdcUnh vf/kfu;e o eSuqvy esa Li"V izkfo/kku gSA pSd izfo"Vhdj.k ds lEcU/k esa lEcfU/kr lgk;d pdcUnh vf/kdkjh bl fcUnq ij fof/k ds vuqdze esa fopkj.k djsaxsA iqufoZpkj izkFkZuk i= fnukad 24-07-2003 mijksDrkuqlkj fuLrkfjr fd;k tkrk gSA** (Emphasis Supplied) (x) The petitioner filed a second restoration application dated 21.8.2003 with an application for interim relief. The Deputy Director of Consolidation granted interim order on aforesaid application. At this stage the respondents have preferred a writ petition bearing No.7675 of 2004 mainly on ground that second review application was not maintainable. The writ petition was disposed of by an order dated 25.2.2004 with the direction that Deputy Director of Consolidation will first decide the maintainability of review application before proceeding to decide the revision on merit. The relevant part of order is reproduced hereinafter :- "It is submitted that a review application against the order of the Deputy Director of Consolidation dated 15.07.2003 was dismissed on 14.08.2003 but a second review application which according to the petitioner is not maintainable was filed by respondent no.3 on which an injunction order has been passed in the circumstances, it is open to the petitioner to take this objection in regard to the maintainability before the Deputy Director of Consolidation himself from the review application filed by the respondents it appears that objection to the jurisdiction of Deputy Director of Consolidation has been taken. Without expressing any opinion on merits of this case, if such an objection is taken by the petitioner before the Deputy Director of consolidation, the Deputy Director of consolidation will first decide the maintainability of the review application before proceeding to decide the revision on merits. With the aforesaid direction, this petition is disposed of." (Emphasis Supplied) (xi) In above circumstances, the Revisional Authority proceeded to consider the second review/restoration application and held that the order dated 15.7.2003 passed by earlier Presiding Officer was beyond jurisdiction since on 15.7.2003 he was not acting as a Deputy Director of Consolidation as jurisdiction was transferred to other Officer and it was held that revision petition has to be heard afresh on merit. (xii) In the aforesaid circumstances, the Revisional Authority heard the counsel for parties afresh and by assuming the power under Section 48(3) of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act allowed the revision petition by order dated 27.3.2004 and set aside the impugned orders therein dated 18.7.1997 passed by Consolidation Officer as well as order dated 27.3.2003 passed by Appellate Authority. (xii) In the aforesaid circumstances, the Revisional Authority heard the counsel for parties afresh and by assuming the power under Section 48(3) of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act allowed the revision petition by order dated 27.3.2004 and set aside the impugned orders therein dated 18.7.1997 passed by Consolidation Officer as well as order dated 27.3.2003 passed by Appellate Authority. The relevant part of order is mentioned hereinafter :- ^^2 & fuxjkuh ds fuxjkuhdrkZx.k jes'k vkfn }kjk fu;e 65 , ¼1½ ds varxZr izLrqr] izkFkZuk i= ij i{kksa dks lquus ds ckn ;g i=koyh bl U;k;ky; esa fjdky dh x;h gS iquLFkkZiu izkFkZuk i= rFkk fuxjkuh ij i{kksa ds fo}ku vf/koDrkx.kksa dks foLrkj iwoZd lquk x;kA x x x x x x 6 & fuxjkuh la[;k 1081 lgk;d cankscLr vf/kdkjh] pdcanh }kjk vihy la0 182 /kkjk 11¼1½ m0iz0 tksr pdcanh vf/kfu;e 1953 esa ikfjr vkns'k fnukad 27&07&2003 ds fo:) izLrqr dh x;h gS ftlds }kjk mUgksaus ds'ko izlkn vkfn dh vihy tks pdcanh vf/kdkjh }kjk /kkjk 9ch ds varxZr ikfjr vkns'k fnukad 18&10&97 ds fo:) izLrqr dh x;h Fkh dks fujLr dj fn;k Fkk fuxjkuh esa ;g vk/kkj fy;k x;k gS fd Hkw[k.M la[;k 828 fuxjkuhdrkZx.k dk lcls cMk Hkw[k.M gS tgkWa mldk jgu lgu o [kfygku gksrk gSA blh Hkw[k.M ls lVs if'pe Hkw[k.M la[;k 827 {ks=Qy 0-999 gs0 dk fofue; vuqikr lgk;d pdcanh vf/kdkjh ds Lrj ij 40 iSls yxk;k x;k gSA ckn esa Hkw[k.M la[;k 827 dk 0&03&08 ch?kk {ks=Qy equs'pjh nsoha L=h iape }kjk dz; djus ds ckn foi{kh u vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 9ch ds varxZr vkifRr izLrqr dj mDr {ks=Qy dks pdcanh fdz;kvksa ls i`Fkd fd, tkus dk vuqjks/k bl vk/kkj ij fd;k x;k fd ;g Hkkx ugj ds ikuh ls tyeXu jgk gS vkSj pdcanh vf/kdkjh us fcuk ekSdk ns[ks vkSj LFky fujh{k.k fd;s Hkw[k.M la[;k 827 esa u;k mi la[;k 827@1 dk;e djds fnukad 18&10&97 ds vkns'k }kjk pdcanh fdz;kvksa ls i`Fkd dj fn;k gS ftlds fo:) fuxjkuhdrkZvksa dh vihy vkf{kIr vkns'k fnukad 27&03&2003 dks fcuk fof/k dh foospuk fd;s fujLr dj nh x;h gSA ;g Hkh rdZ izLrqr fd;k x;k gS fd foi{kh equs'ojh dks ftlus fofue; vuqikr yxkus ds ckn Hkw[k.M la[;k 827 dk cSukek fy;k gS] ls] dz; fd, x;s {ks=Qy dks pdcanh fdz;kvksa ls ckgj fd, tkus dk vf/kdkj gS vFkok ugha D;k pdcanh vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 9ch ds varxZr fdl Hkw[k.M dks pdcanh fdz;kvksa ls i`Fkd djus dk vkns'k ikfjr djus dk vf/kdkj gS vFkok ugha rFkk iz'uxr Hkw[k.M dk iwjk {ks=Qy 3&19&0 esa mi[k.M dk;e dj foi{kh la0 2 equs'pjh ds i{k 01&03&08 dk u;k Hkw[k.M dk;e fd;k tk ldrk Fkk vFkok ugh] ij fof/kd fu"d"kZ fudkys tkus dh vko';drk gSA 6 & foi{kh la[;k 2 ds fo}ku vf/koDrk dk rdZ gS fd Hkw[k.M la[;k 827 dk 01&03&08 ch?kk {ks=Qy mldks dz; fd;k gS tks lMd ds fdukjs fLFkr gSA vr% bldh okf.kfT;d mi;ksfxrk gksus ds dkj.k mlus pdcanh vf/kdkjh ds le{k bl {ks=Qy dks lh0,p0 18 fd, tkus dk vuqjks/k fd;k Fkk ftls pdcanh vf/kdkjh us LFky fujh{k.k djkdj Lohdkj dj fy;k gSA x x x x x x 10 & vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 9 esa ;g micaf/kr gS fd /kkjk 8 rFkk /kkjk 8 d esa mfYyf[kr vfHkys[kksa dks izdkf'kr djkdj vkifRr;ka vkeaf=r fd;s tkus ds fy, uksfVl tkjh dh tk;sxhA /kkjk 9 ¼2½ ds varxZr dksbZ O;fDr ftls /kkjk 9¼1½ ds v/khu uksfVl Hksth x;h gks 21 fnu ds vanj lgk;d pdcanh vf/kdkjh ds le{k vkifRr izLrqr dj ldrk gS ftlesa vfHkys[kksa ,oa mlesa ls fy, x;s m)j.kksa dh izfof"V;ksa dh 'kq)rk vFkok muds izdkj ds lEca/k esa ,oa fl)karks ds fooj.k i= ds lEca/k esa ,oa foHkktu dh vko';drk ds lEca/k esa vkifRr dh tk ldrh gSA /kkjk 9d ¼2½ ds varxZr xkVksa ds ewY;kadu esa lEcaf/kr lHkh ekeys rFkk os lHkh ekeys] ftuds lEca/k isMksa] dqvkWa rFkk vU; lEifRr;ksa dk izfrdj vkadfyr djus ds fy, mudk ewY;kadu rFkk ;fn ,d ls vf/kd Lokeh gks] rks mldks ;g Lokfe;ksa esa vfoHkkftr djus ds lEca/k esa pdcanh vf/kdkjh dks Hksts tk;saxs tks mudk fujLrkj.k fu;r jhfr ls djsxkA 11 & vf/kfu;e dh mijksDr ;kstuk ls Li"V gS fd ewY;kadu@fofue; vuqikr ds lEca/k esa /kkjk 9&d ¼2½ ds varxZr gh vkifRr;ka izLrqr dh tk ldsxh ijUrq pdcanh vf/kdkjh ds le{k foi{kh la[;k 2 }kjk izLrqr vkifRr ckn ds izdze ij /kkjk 9 [k ¼2½ ds varxZr izLrqr dh x;ha Fkh ftl ;g micaf/kr gS fd ;fn fl)karks ds fo:) /kkjk 9 esa fu;r le; ds Hkhrj dksbZ vkifRr izLrq u dh x;h gks rks mlds 'kq)rk dh ijh{k.k djus dh n`f"V ls pdcanh vf/kdkjh pdcanh lfefr dks mfpr lwpuk nsus ds i'pkr dVd dk LFkyh; fujh{k.k djsxk vkSj rRi'pkr fl)karks fooj.k i= esa vko';drkuqlkj ifjLdkj ,oa ifjorZu dj ldrk gSA 12 & bl izdj.k esa Hkw[k.M la0 827 iMrky ds le; tks ekSds ij d`f"kd {ks=Qy ik;k x;k Fkk ds fo:) /kkjk 9d¼2½ ds varxZr dksbZ vkifRr izLrqr ugha dh x;h FkhaA foi{kh la[;k 2 }kjk ckn esa mDr Hkw[k.M dk 01&03&08 ch?kk {ks=Qy dz; fd;k x;k gSa vkSj mlds }kjk vk/kkj ij mDr {ks=Qy dks pdcanh ls ckgj fd;s tkus dk vuqjks/k fd;k x;k gS fd ;g Hkwfe ugj ls tyeXu gksus ds dkj.k izHkkfor gksrh gS tcfd foi{kh }kjk vkifRr esa ;g dgk x;k fd vkcknh cukus gsrq mlus mDr Hkwfe ds dz; fd;k gSA Li"V gS fd pdcanh vf/kdkjh }kjk vf/kfu;e ds izkfo/kkuksa ds varxZr fnukad 18&10&97 dk vkns'k ikfjr ugha fd;k gS vkSj foi{kh la0 2 dh vkifRr dks fof/kd mica/kksa ls ijs Lohd`r dj fy;k x;k gSA mYys[kuh; gS fd foi{kh la[;k 2 }kjk Hkw[k.M la[;k 827 ds dqy {ks=Qy 03&19&0 esa ls dsoy 01&03&08 ch?kk {ks=Qy dz; fd;k x;k gS ftldk LFky ij foHkktu Hkh ugha fd;k tk ldrk gSA ,slh n'kk esa Hkw[k.M la[;k 827 dk dkSu lk Hkkx lh0,p0 18 fd;k tk; Hkh fofu'fpr ugha fd;k tk ldrk gSA foi{kh la[;k 2 fodz; i= ds vk/kkj ij Hkw[k.M la[;k 827 esa vU; dkLrdkjksa ds lkFk lg [kkrsnkj gks x;k gSA vr% Hkw[k.M la[;k 827 dk u;k mi[k.M Hkh dk;e ugh fd;k tk ldrk FkkA 13 & mijksDr ls Lo"kZoijhr Hkw[k.M la[;k 827 dk mi [k.M la[;k 9 dk;e dj 01&03&08 ch?kk {ks=Qy dks lh0,p0 18 fd;k x;k gSA vihy U;k;ky; }kjk bu lHkh fcUnqvksa ij fcuk dksb fopkj fd, vihy fujLr dh x;h gSA mijksDr dkj.kksa ls eSa bl izdj.k dks /kkjk 48 dh mi /kkjk 3 ds varxZr laKku esa ysrs gq, pdcanh vf/kdkfj;ksa }kjk ikfjr vkns'k fnukad 18-07-1997 rFkk Hkw[k.M la[;k 827 dk mi[k.M la[;k 1 dk;e djus lEca/kh vkns'k fujLr fd;k tkrk gSA 14 & mijksDrkuqlkj fuxjkuh Lohdkj dh tkrh gSA vihy U;k;ky; dk vkf{kIr vkns'k fnukad 27-03-2003 rFkk pdcanh vf/kdkjh dk vkns'k fnukad 18-07-1997 vikLr fd;k tkrk gSA rn~uqlkj vfHkys[kksa esa la'kks/ku dh dk;Zokgh dh tk;sxhA** (Emphasis Supplied) 3. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that respondent was not an aggrieved or interested party to proceedings under Section 9-A (2) of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, therefore, he had no locus to file an appeal or revision petition and in this regard. He placed reliance on a judgment passed by Co-ordinate Bench in the case of Ram Sakal and others v. Sheo Pal and others, 2019 (6) ADJ 103 and relevant paragraph Nos.26 and 27 thereof are mentioned hereinafter :- "26. In light of the above discussion, the phrase 'person interested' used in Section 9 of the Act, 1953 has to be read as person having a vested right in the holding and not some contingent right which may arise in future. 27. It is evident that during the lifetime of Sheopal, respondent No. 2 had no vested right in the disputed property and no interest in the holdings which he could have defended or protected and therefore respondent No. 2 was not a person interested under Section 9 of the Act, 1953. Therefore the objections of respondent No. 2 registering Case No. 72/310 under Section 9-A(2) of the Act, 1953 were not maintainable. At this stage it would be relevant to refer to the observations of this Court in Kanhaiya Lal (Supra) in paragraph No. 23 : ''23. Now the question about the locus sandi of an objector under Section 9 is a question which affects the very jurisdiction of the Consolidation Officer to proceed in the matter. It is only at the instance of an interested part that he can proceed to dispose of the controversy. If a party is not an interested party then no objection can be entertained under Section 9 at his instance. It will be strange if at the instance of a complete stranger the name of the existing tenure holder is removed and the name of another person is mutated even though the latter has himself not filed any objection. In the present case even though Rani Vishwa Kumari Devi did not claim any right with respect to the plots in question, still, her name has been directed to be entered as bhumidhar of the plots in question at the instance of a complete stranger i.e. Lal Pratap Bahadur Singh. Apart from the language of Se. 9 which speaks of a 'person interested', in general law such a course is not permissible. Apart from the language of Se. 9 which speaks of a 'person interested', in general law such a course is not permissible. It will be almost compelling a person to be mutated as a tenure holder even though he may not be willing to do so. In being entered as a tenure holder certain liabilities will also come into existence. The recorded tenure holder will be bound to pay the dues of the State in respect of the plots in question. It is inconceivable that a party can be compelled to be subject to such liabilities at the instance of a rank stranger who has no interest in the plots in question and as such who has no locus standi to file objections. All these considerations lead to the conclusion that before the jurisdiction of the Consolidation Officer can be invoked under Section 9. the objector must be a person interested and only then he will have a locus standi to file objection on the basis of which the Consolidation Officer will proceed to decide the controversy between the parties. If the objections are filed at the instance of a rank stranger, the Consolidation Officer has no jurisdiction to act in the matter and to direct the name of the recorded tenure holder to be elected." 4. Learned counsel has further submitted that main ground on which appeal was filed that in case, land in dispute was excluded from consolidation proceedings, passage of respondents to their land would be disturbed, which was rejected by the Appellate Court as well as Revisional Court, however, the Revisional court has considered case on a different issue and passed order on assumption that since the land in dispute was purchased by petitioner for the purpose of construction of his house, therefore, the land could not be submerged under water. In this regard, learned counsel for petitioner has referred relevant part of impugned order as well as memo of appeal and revision. 5. The aforesaid submissions are opposed by learned counsel for contesting respondents and he submitted that since the petitioner has purchased the land in dispute after the publication under Section 9 of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act and since no objection was filed by original tenant holder, the petitioner being vendee has no legal ground to file objection regarding certain portion of land in dispute to chak-out. The respondent has a locus to file an appeal and revision as he was affected by order of chak-out since his land was adjacent to land in dispute. 6. Learned counsel for contesting respondent has also pointed out that it was admitted case before the Revisional Authority that land in dispute was not submerged under water. 7. In rejoinder, learned counsel for petitioner submits that there are contrary findings of Revisional Authority in regard whether the land in dispute was a submerged land or not. 8. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the record. 9. In the present case following facts are not much in dispute since they are based on material on record :- (i) Valuation of Gata No. 827/.999 was determined by the Assistant Consolidation Officer on 13.2.1995 (Annexure No.1 of II Supplementary Counter Affidavit). (ii) Notification under Section 9 of Act of 1953 in regard to concerned village was issued on 2.12.1995 (Annexure No.2 of II Supplementary Counter Affidavit). (iii) Recorded tenure holders as mentioned in basic year have never submitted any objection in regard to the valuation of referred land. (iv) Dharmdeo, Bihar and Subedar sons of Late Ram Raj have executed a registered sale-deed dated 13.12.1996 in favour of Smt. Muneshvari Devi wife of Pancham of plot No.827 area 1 Bigha 13 Biswa 8 dhur. In the citation of aforesaid sale deed, nature of land i.e. being submerged in water or not fit for agriculture was not disclosed rather it was mentioned that ^mDr Hkwfe[k.M lMd o vkcknh ls 1 fdyksehVj nwj fLFkr gS* i.e. it was not disclosed that land has commercial value or was purchased for abadi (see Annexure No.3 of II Supplementary Counter Affidavit). (v) The petitioner (vendee), at a belated stage on 14.08.1996 filed objection under Section 9-A (2) of Act of 1953, stating that land in dispute was a non-agricultural land and it was wrongly valued and it was purchased for abadi, therefore, it may be chak-out from consolidation proceedings. Land in dispute was a submerged land was not raised as a ground in objection. The objection was not accompanied with any application for condonation of delay, even though it was filed beyond limitation period of 21 days as prescribed under Section 9(2) of Act of 1953. (see Annexure No.4 of II Supplementary Counter Affidavit). Land in dispute was a submerged land was not raised as a ground in objection. The objection was not accompanied with any application for condonation of delay, even though it was filed beyond limitation period of 21 days as prescribed under Section 9(2) of Act of 1953. (see Annexure No.4 of II Supplementary Counter Affidavit). (vi) The Consolidation Officer has considered above referred objection under Section 9-B of Act of 1953 and by order dated 18.10.1997 directed that land in dispute (Gata No.827/1, Rakba 1 Bigha 3 Biswa 8 Dhur) shall be chak-out from consolidation proceedings being affected from canal and submerged in water. The order does not indicate that any spot inspection was conducted and order was passed only on basis of bare objection and perusal of records of village. (see Annexure No.3 of writ petition). (vii) The respondent Nos. 2 to 5 herein were not party before the Consolidation Officer, still they filed an appeal after four years before the Settlement Officer Consolidation to challenge order dated 18.10.1997, mainly on ground that impugned order was passed contrary to law and due to order of chak-out, passage to their chak (adjacent to chak in question) would be affected since their chak was surrounded by a canal colony, having boundary and that all surrounding chaks were valued during consolidation proceedings including land under other bainamas. (viii) The Settlement Officer Consolidation dismissed the appeal both on delay and on merit on ground that no sufficient cause was shown to condone the delay of four years and any land adjacent to road whether agricultural or non-agricultural was liable to be chak-out. The reason given by Appellate Authority was different from reason given by Consolidation Officer that land in dispute was submerged. The Appellate Authority failed to take note that in objection, petitioner has mentioned that land in dispute was one k.m. away from road and abadi. (ix) The contesting respondents preferred a revision petition inter alia on various grounds which are extracted in paragraph 2(vii) of this judgment. The Revisional Authority allowed the revision by order dated 15.07.2003 and order of chak-out as well as order passed by Appellate Authority was set aside. The Authority took note of admission of both parties that land in dispute is far away from canal and it was not a submerged land. The reason for chak-out that land was non-agricultural was found to be incorrect. The Authority took note of admission of both parties that land in dispute is far away from canal and it was not a submerged land. The reason for chak-out that land was non-agricultural was found to be incorrect. (x) The petitioner filed a restoration application against order dated 15.07.2003 but it was dismissed by a reasoned order dated 14.8.2003, by the Revisional Authority. The petitioner, thereafter, filed a second restoration application, which was heard and an interim order was passed. Meanwhile respondents have approached this Court and their writ petition was disposed of by order dated 25.2.2004 with observation that issue of maintainability would also be considered by concerned Authority. (xi) Thereafter the Revisional Authority had set aside order dated 15.7.2003 on the ground of being passed beyond jurisdiction since at relevant time jurisdiction was with other Officer. Thereafter the Revisional Authority has heard the revision afresh. (xii) The Revisional Authority by impugned order dated 27.3.2004 allowed the revision petition filed by respondent and set aside orders passed by Consolidation Officer and Settlement Officer Consolidation, the said order is assailed before this Court by way of present writ petition. (xiii) The Revisional Authority, in impugned order has considered the scheme of consolidation under the Act of 1953 that records and statements of principles were prepared and published under Section 8 and 8-A of Act of 1953, thereafter, objections to it were invited by issuing notice under Section 9 of Act of 1953 and objections filed there upon would be considered under Section 9-A of Act of 1953 and since in present case no objection was filed to inspection report and scheme, therefore, belated objections ought to have been considered only after due process, such as spot inspection, identification of exact land in dispute as well as to mention a reason to take a contrary view that land was wrongly found to be agricultural during inspection and in records prepared during consolidation proceedings. 10. In background of above details, the Court now proceed to consider oral submissions. The first issue is in regard to locus or competency of respondents to challenge the order of chak-out. The counsel for petitioner has referred order passed by Appellate Authority that reason alleged by respondents that due to order of chak-out passage to their chak would be effected was specifically rejected. The first issue is in regard to locus or competency of respondents to challenge the order of chak-out. The counsel for petitioner has referred order passed by Appellate Authority that reason alleged by respondents that due to order of chak-out passage to their chak would be effected was specifically rejected. In support of submission that respondents would not fall under 'interested person', the counsel for petitioner has placed reliance on Ram Sakal (supra) which is related to stage of objection filed under Section 9 of Act of 1953, whereas in present case the issue of locus would be considered keeping in mind that respondents came into picture, when they file an appeal against the order passed for chak-out of land in dispute. Therefore, in a case where the person was able to show that order of chak-out of land would adversely affect his rights, he would have locus to challenge the order. 11. In the present case, respondents have alleged that order of chak-out would affect passage of their land. In my opinion it was as valid ground for respondents to file appeal and, therefore, they have a locus to file an appeal. Since respondents/appellants have failed to prove their above referred claim, therefore, the Appellate Authority has rejected the appeal on merit. In Ram Sakal (supra) a co-ordinate Bench has held that a person who has some contingent right in the holding which may arise in future would not fall under 'interested person', whereas in present case, the case set up by respondents was that due to chak-out, he would be in adverse position, therefore, he had locus to file an appeal, though on merit they failed to substantiate their claim, though it was not disputed that their land was near to land in dispute, therefore, they were not rank strangers. 12. The next issue to be considered is whether the Revisional Authority has erred in deciding the revision petition filed by respondents on absolutely different grounds and wrongly scrutinized the order of chak-out on merit, without referring the claim of respondent that order of chak-out had prejudice them and whether, the Revisional Authority has erroneously exercised powers under Section 48 (3) of Act of 1953 and whether due procedure to pass an order to chak-out a land from consolidation proceedings was followed or not? 13. 13. In order to consider above issue, firstly this Court have to consider power and jurisdiction of the Revisional Authority provided under Section 48 of Act of 1953. 14. Section 48 of Act of 1953 is extracted hereinafter :- "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. (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). Explanation. - (1) - For the purposes of this section, Settlement Officers, Consolidation, Consolidation Officers, Assistant Consolidation Officers, Consolidator and Consolidation Lekhpals shall be subordinate to the Director of Consolidation. Explanation (2) - For the purposes of this section the expression 'interlocutory order' in relation to a case or proceeding, means such order deciding any matter arising in such case or proceeding or collateral thereto as does not have the effect to finally disposing of such case or proceeding. Explanation (3). - The power under this section to examine the correctness, legality or propriety of any order includes the power to examine any finding, whether of fact or law, recorded by any subordinate authority, and also includes the power to re-appreciate any oral or documentary evidence." 15. From the bare perusal of above referred provisions, it would be evident that Revisional Authority may call and examine the record of any case decided or proceedings undertaken by any subordinate authority for purpose of satisfying himself as to 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. Further explanation (3) to Section explains that Revisional Authority has power to examine any findng whether of facts or law recorded by any subordinate authority, which also includes power to re-appreciate any oral or documentary evidence. 16. The above details would be sufficient to hold that a Revisional Authority under Act of 1953 has very wide power, which includes power to examine orders passed by any subordinate authority in terms of its correctness, legality or propriety. 17. In present case, the Revisional Authority has examined impugned orders i.e. order passed by Consolidation Officer and Settlement Officer Consolidation on anvil of its correctness, legality or propriety. 18. In the impugned order, the Revisional Authority has referred scheme of consolidation at stage of preparation of record and of consolidation scheme and process of filing and consideration of objection to it. Relevant Sections 8, 8A, 9 and 9A of Act of 1953 are reproduced hereinafter :- "8. Revision of the field-book and the current annual register; determination of valuations and shares in joint holdings. - (1) Upon the revision of the maps under Section 7, the District Deputy Director of Consolidation shall, subject to the provisions hereinafter contained, and in such manner as may be prescribed, cause to be - (i) revised, the field-book of the unit after field to field partial, and the current annual register after its test and verification; (ii) determined, in consultation with the Consolidation Committee, the valuation of - (a) each plot after taking into consideration its productivity, location and availability of irrigation facilities, if any; and (b) all trees, wells and other improvements existing in the plots for the purpose of calculating compensation therefor; (iii) ascertained the share of each owner, if there be more owners than one, out of the valuation determined under sub-clause (b) of clause (ii); and (iv) determined the shares of individual tenure-holders in joint holding for the purpose of effecting partition to ensure proper consolidation. (2) The District Deputy Director of Consolidation shall cause to be prepared a khasra chakbandi, in the form prescribed in respect of all the plots falling in the unit as also a statement showing the mistakes] [undisputed cases of succession] and disputes discovered during the test and verification of the annual register and in the course of the field to field partal." 8-A. Preparation of Statement of Principles. - (1) The Assistant Consolidation Officer shall, in consultation with the Consolidation Committee, prepare, in respect of each unit under consolidation operations, a statement in the prescribed form (hereinafter called the Statement of Principles) setting forth the principles to be followed in carrying out the consolidation operations in the unit. (2) The Statement of Principles shall also contain - (a) details of areas, as far as they can be determined at this stage, to be earmarked for extension of abadi including areas for abadi site for Harijans and landless persons in the unit, and for such other public purposes as may be prescribed; (b) the basis on which the tenure-holders will contribute land for extension of abadi and for other public purposes; and (c) details of land to be earmarked for public purposes out of land vested in a Gaon Sabha or a Local Authority under Section 117 or Section 117-A of the Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950. (d) the standard plots for each unit. (3) The standard plots referred to in clause (d) of sub-section (2) shall be determined by the Assistant Consolidation Officer after ascertaining from the members of the Consolidation Committee and the tenure-holders of the units, the best plot or plots of the unit, regard being had to productivity, location and the existing soil class of the plot or plots. 9. Issue of extracts from records and statements and publication of records mentioned in Sections 8 and 8-A and the issue of notices for inviting objections. 9. Issue of extracts from records and statements and publication of records mentioned in Sections 8 and 8-A and the issue of notices for inviting objections. - (1) Upon the preparation of the records and the statements mentioned in Sections 8 and 8-A, the Assistant Consolidation Officer shall -] (a) correct the clerical mistakes, if any, and send, or cause to be sent, to the tenure-holders concerned and other persons interested, notices containing relevant extracts from the current annual register and such other records as may be prescribed showing - (i) their rights in and liabilities in relation to the land; (ii) mistakes, [undisputed cases of succession]and disputes discovered under Section 8 in respect thereof; (iii) specific shares of individual tenure-holders in joint holdings for the purpose of effecting partitions, where necessary, to ensure proper consolidation; (iv) valuation of the plots; and (v) valuation of trees, wells and other improvements for calculating compensation therefor and its apportionment amongst owners, if there be more owners than one; (b) publish in the unit the current khasra and the current annual register, the khasra chakbandi, the Statement of Principles prepared under Section 8-A, and any other records that may be prescribed to show, inter alia, the particulars referred to in clause (a). (2) Any person to whom a notice under sub-section (1) has been sent, or any other person interested may, within 21 days of the receipt of notice, or of the publication under sub-section (1), as the case may be, file, before the Assistant Consolidation Officer, objections in respect thereof disputing the correctness or nature of the entries in the records or in the extracts furnished therefrom, or in the Statement of Principles, or the need for partition. 9-A. Disposal of Cases relating to claims to land and partition of joint holdings. 9-A. Disposal of Cases relating to claims to land and partition of joint holdings. - (1) The Assistant Consolidation Officer shall - (i) where objections in respect of claims to land or partition of joint holdings are filed, after hearing the parties concerned, and (ii) where no objections are filed after making such enquiry as he may deem necessary, settle the disputes, correct the mistakes and effect partition as far as may be by conciliation between the parties appearing before him and pass orders on the basis of such conciliation : Provided that where the Assistant Consolidation Officer, after making such enquiry as he may deem necessary, is satisfied that a case of succession is undisputed, he shall dispose of the case on the basis of such enquiry. (2) All cases which are not disposed of by the Assistant Consolidation Officer under sub-section (1), all cases relating to valuation of plots and all cases relating to valuation of trees, wells or other improvements, for calculating compensation therefore, and its apportionment amongst coowners, if there be more owners than one, shall be forwarded by the Assistant Consolidation Officer to the Consolidation Officer, who shall dispose of the same in the manner prescribed. (3) The Assistant Consolidation Officer, while acting under sub-section (1) and the Consolidation Officer, while acting under sub-section (2), shall be deemed to be a Court of competent jurisdiction, anything to the contrary contained in any other law for the time being in force notwithstanding. 19. Bare perusal of above provisions would be sufficient to hold that a detail procedure was provided in above referred provisions that subsequent to revision of the field book and the current annual register, determination of valuations and shares in joint holdings would be under taken according to procedure prescribed in Section 8 of Act of 1953. Thereafter under Section 8A of Act of 1953, Statement of Principles would be prepared including details mentioned statements in said provisions. 20. Subsequently, Assistant Consolidation Officer would undertake exercise of correction of clerical mistake and for that he may issue notice under provisions of Section 9(1) of Act of 1953. Noticee or any interested person may file objection under Section 9(2) within prescribed period of 21 days. 21. 20. Subsequently, Assistant Consolidation Officer would undertake exercise of correction of clerical mistake and for that he may issue notice under provisions of Section 9(1) of Act of 1953. Noticee or any interested person may file objection under Section 9(2) within prescribed period of 21 days. 21. The above referred provisions further provides that objections filed under Section 9(2) of Act of 1953 would be considered and would be disposed of in terms of Section 9(A)(1) or 9(A)(2), as the case may be. 22. In present case, undisputedly recorded tenure holders had not made any objection to valuation of land in dispute and sold land in dispute to petitioner; who at a belated stage, for the first time filed objection to valuation of land in dispute. Delay in filing belated objection were required to be condoned, however, no order of condonation of delay was placed on record, though Consolidation Officer has purportedly decided the objection under Section 9(A)(2) of Act of 1953. 23. As discussed above proceeding under Section 9(A) (2) are important proceedings and objections have to be considered carefully on merit and for that the Consolidation Officer has to undertake proceeding according to procedure prescribed in relevant Rule of 1954 i.e. Rule 25 and 25A. The Consolidation Officer has to peruse carefully the details of Statements of Principles, nature of land in dispute mentioned therein as well as manner of determination of its nature. The Consolidation Officer is under a legal obligation to conduct a spot inspection, if circumstances so warrant. In present case, such circumstances were in existence since, objections were filed for first time by vendee at belated stage. Admittedly, no such inspection was conducted, which would be evident from order also (see paragraph 2 (iv) of this judgment). The order passed by the Consolidation Officer was bereft of any reason and would fall under category of 'cryptic and unreasoned order'. The Consolidation Officer has simply accepted the claim of petitioner (vendee), without referring that recorded tenure holders have not filed any objection to valuation of land in dispute. 24. Above discussion would clearly indicate that the Consolidation Officer has completely given bypass to due process, therefore, order dated 18.10.1997 passed by the Consolidation Officer whereby land in dispute was directed to be chak-out from consolidation proceedings suffered with illegality and being incorrect and against propriety is unsustainable in eyes of law. 24. Above discussion would clearly indicate that the Consolidation Officer has completely given bypass to due process, therefore, order dated 18.10.1997 passed by the Consolidation Officer whereby land in dispute was directed to be chak-out from consolidation proceedings suffered with illegality and being incorrect and against propriety is unsustainable in eyes of law. In this regard Deputy Director of Consolidation has referred the scheme of consolidation, objection and consideration that it was not followed (see paragarph 2(xii) ) of this judgment). The Revisional Authority has legally exercised its power of revision as provided under Section 48 of Act of 1953, as referred in preceding paragraphs. Impugned order has survived on this account also. The factual aspect of case is also against the claim of petitioner that land in dispute was a non-agricultural land or a submerged land. Reference of spot inspection being part of impugned order would be relevant. Para 7 thereof is mentioned hereinafter :- ^^7 & i=koyh ij miyC/k tksr pdcanh vkdkj i= 25 ds voyksdu ds ;g Li"V gS fd Hkw[k.M la[;k 827 dk dqy {ks=Qy 0-9990 gS tks vk/kkj o"kZ ds [kkrk la[;k 221 rFkk 166 esa cklw vkfn ds uke vafdr jgk gSA iM+rky ds le; lEiw.kZ {ks=Qy d`f"k ;ksX; ik;s tkus ds dkj.k bl vfHkys[k ds LrEHk 21 rFkk 22 esa /kku rFkk xsgwa dh Qly ik;k tkuk vafdr gS rFkk LrEHk 24 esa fuEu izfof"V vafdr gSA** (Emphasis Supplied) 25. Now Court has to consider whether the Revisional Authority has legally assumed power under Section 48(3) of Act of 1953. In this regard, reference of Section 48(3) would be relevant that it provides a procedure of reference that it ought to be sent by any authority subordinate to Deputy Director of Consolidation, which admittedly was not a case in hand, therefore, Deputy Director of Consolidation has erroneously assumed power under Section 48(3) of Act of 1953. 26. After referring above, I am still of opinion that since Deputy Director of Consolidation has wide powers under Section 48(1) read with its explanation No.3, that it could consider the order passed by any subordinate authority at the threshold of factors such as to the correctness, legality or propriety of order, therefore, he has rightly scrutinized the orders passed by Consolidation Officer and Settlement Officer Consolidation in impugned order and returned a specific finding that those orders failed on anvil of above factors. Since power was already with the Revisional Authority under Section 48(1) of Act of 1953, therefore, there was no need to borrow power for Section 48(3) of Act of 1953. Therefore, only due to reason that Deputy Director of Consolidation has erroneously assumed power under Section 48(3) of Act of 1953, the impugned order would not be rendered illegal, and as discussed above impugned order is justified in terms of factors given in Section 48(1) of Act of 1953. 27. The argument of petitioner that since objection of respondents was not the ground to set aside order passed by Consolidation Officer and Settlement Officer Consolidation, therefore, Deputy Director of Consolidation has committed illegality has also no legal basis since as referred in preceding paragraphs, the Deputy Director of Consolidation has wide power under Section 48(1) of Act of 1953, even to call for and examine the record of any case. It has been discussed above that order passed by Consolidation Officer was blatantly illegal, therefore, all the arguments of petitioner are legally unsustainable. 28. In view of above discussions, present writ petition being sans merit is rejected. 29. No order as to costs.