Dhani Ram vs Deputy Director of Consolidation, Jhansi and others

S.K. Singh, J.—Heard Sri S.K. Chaturvedi, learned Advocate in support of this writ petition. In spite of the revision of the list the respondents Counsel whose name is shown did not appear.

There is already service report by which notices on other respondents is deemed to have been served. So far the respondent No. 9 is concerned petitioner Counsel states that he has purchased the property from respondent No. 9 and, therefore, his name has to he deleted.

In view of the aforesaid as writ petition is of the year 1993 and about 15 years has already passed and the matter relates to simple allotment of chak proceeding no further wait can be there and as argued by learned Counsel for the petitioner writ petition is to be finally decided.

Matter is very simple and small and that relates to adjustment of plots in the chaks of the parties.

On notice of summary of the facts and the arguments in brief writ petition can be conveniently disposed of.

Till the stage of the Settlement Officer Consolidation there was no change in the chak of the revisionist namely Rakesh. Amendment chart appended to the order of the appellate authority indicates that plot No. 196 and 199 which were allotted in his chak was not disturbed. Till the prior stage valuation of plot No. 189 was just slightly reduced from 80 paise to 40 paise. Appellate authority wrote a long judgment dealing with the chak of other parties. None else than Rakesh filed revision. Deputy Director of Consolidation by a cryptic order allowed the revision which is claimed to be on totally incorrect facts and thus petitioner is before this Court.

Ground is that the facts stated in the judgment of the Deputy Director of Consolidation are factually incorrect and they are against the record and in fact at the instance of the Rakesh, petitioner has been illegally disturbed. Submission is that plot No. 181 is the largest part of holding of the petitioner of an area of .809 hectares in which his Well is situated which is clear from Form 2A in which only an area of 189 are was allotted by the appellate authority but that has been wrongly taken out by the Deputy Director of Consolidation. It is further argued that observation in the judgment that petitioner has his house in plot No. 469, 470 is also factually incorrect. All these averments have been made in the writ petition. Documents have also been filed in support of the submission of the claim of plot No. 181 being largest part of holding and the Well being situate there.

A perusal of the judgment of the Deputy Director of Consolidation makes it clear that it is not only cryptic but if the contention/averment of the petitioner side is accepted then that is based on incorrect premises. Petitioner can be safely said to be entitled for allotment over plot No. 181 in which he claims his Well to be there besides that being largest part of holding. In the judgment of the Revisional authority neither there is a proper consideration of the grounds which are said to be valid grounds in view of the provisions of the U.P.C.H. Act providing entitlement to the chak holder nor there is any consideration of the facts and in fact judgment is based on incorrect premises as pleaded in the writ petition. The Deputy Director of Consolidation is the last Court of fact who is entitled to make adjustment considering the equity between the parties and if it is so required by making spot inspection and thus this Court is convinced that the conclusion arrived at by the Deputy Director of Consolidation is not sound and thus the Deputy Director of Consolidation is required to give fresh attention to the merits in the revision after giving adequate opportunity to all the parties.

For the reasons given above, this writ petition succeeds and is allowed. Judgment of the Deputy Director of Consolidation is hereby quashed. Re visional Court is to revive the revision for its decision on merits in accordance with law after giving adequate opportunity of hearing to all the parties preferably within a period of four months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.