Ram Samuj and another vs Deputy Director of Consolidation, Gorakhpur and others

S.K. Singh, J.—Writ petition is of the year 1982 and relates to allotment of chak and as pleadings are complete and both sides insisted that matter may be finally decided upon which this Court has heard the matter and is deciding the same.

Heard Dr. H.N. Tripathi, learned Advocate in support of this petition and Sri Nagendra Kumar Singh, learned Advocate who represents heirs of respondent No. 3.

Proceedings are under section 20 of the U.P.C.H. Act which is in respect to allotment of plots in the chaks of the parties.

Challenge is to the judgment of the Deputy Director of Consolidation by which necessary changes in the chaks has been made.

Submission of Dr. Tripathi is that the Deputy Director of Consolidation without assigning any reason has made changes on account of which petitioner has suffered serious prejudice. Claim is that petitioner''s inconvenience and hardship has not been taken into account and thus on mere asking of the Revisionist revision has been allowed and the petitioner has been shifted/deprived of the original plots which was changed by the Consolidation Officer and the further change was made by the appellate authority. Argument is that if the placement at the appellate stage is maintained then although that is not in accordance with the actual claim/desire of the petitioner but he will be satisfied.

In response to the aforesaid, Sri Singh submits that submission of Dr. Tripathi that Deputy Director of Consolidation made changes without taking note of the petitioner''s claim/hardship appears to be correct as in the judgment of the Deputy Director of Consolidation there is absolutely no discussion in respect to the claim of either of the sides and it has been said that Revisionist has claimed a particular chak and mat is justified. It is to be pointed out that in fact the respondent side was also not in need of the changes which has been made at the revisional stage and for that reason in para 15 of the counter affidavit it has been clearly stated that if the placement at the appellate stage is restored then respondent side will also have no objection.

Submission is that if on these facts writ petition is disposed of then both sides will be in a position to get the justice and none of them will have any prejudice.

In view of the aforesaid, this Court is to dispose of the situation.

A perusal of the judgment of the Deputy Director of Consolidation makes it clear that revision has been allowed on just mere asking of the Revisionist and without taking note of the convenience/hardship of the petitioner and without assigning any reason revision has been allowed" which otherwise, in law, cannot be approved by this Court. Allotment of plots in the chak of the petitioner which is claimed to be the original plots at the A.C.O. Stage was slightly changed by the Consolidation Officer and that was further changed by the appellate authority but the petitioner felt himself satisfied. As the Revisional Court has made changes in arbitrary manner without any analysis and without assigning any reason the order of the Deputy Director of Consolidation otherwise has to go. In normal situation this Court could have remitted the matter for taking fresh decision but as both parties claim to be satisfied with the placement at the appellate stage and long time has already passed, order of the Deputy Director of Consolidation being of the year 1981 this Court is of the view that remittance of the matter will not be in the ends of justice.

In view of the aforesaid, this Court is of the view that judgment of the Deputy Director of Consolidation is to be quashed.

Accordingly this writ petition succeeds and is allowed. Judgment of the Deputy Director of Consolidation is hereby quashed.