VIKRAM NATH, J. - (1.) HEARD learned Counsel for the petitioner, learned Stand­ing Counsel representing respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and Sri M. N. Singh, Advocate, rep­resenting the Gaon Sabha.
(2.) PLOT No. 373/1 area 0.043 acres said to have been reserved for Harijan Abadi in the consolidation proceedings. However, at the time of preparation of final records this plot was not recorded as Hari­jan Abadi but was recorded as Bachat land. The new plot number allotted, to this plot was plot No. 645. The petitioner on coming to know of the said mistake applied for correction of the records and further made an application that no construction may be made on the said plot and maintain the same as Bachat land as in fact it was reserved for Harijan Abadi. On the said ap­plication the Chief Revenue Officer on 7.7.2010 passed an order restraining any construction to be made over the plot in dispute. Upon an application being filed by the Gaon Sabha by the impugned order dated 16.9.2010 the Chief Revenue Officer has vacated the interim order dated 7.7.2010. From the record it appears that under the scheme of the Government a construction for Community Hall/center in the village in the name of Dr. Ambedkar Community Centre is to be made in the villages identified as Ambedkar villages. The village in question has also been iden­tified as one of such villages and a hall re­ferred to above is to be constructed. There is another letter from the District level which mentions that the finances are available for construction of hall in all the vil­lages. This aspect may also be considered by the Chief Revenue Officer while deciding the application filed by the petitioner.
(3.) THE petitioner is not the Pradhan of the village. He claims to be an Ex Prad­han. Further the petitioner is not a Harijan but claims to be supporting the cause of the Harijans. In the opinion of the Court the community hall which is to be constructed over the disputed plot is also for the benefit of the Harijans and if any delay is caused there is likelihood that the budget which is available for the present financial year may lapse and the construction work may be stopped for all time. Therefore in the opin­ion of the Court the interest of justice would be best served in case the Chief Revenue Officer while deciding the appli­cation of the petitioner may also consider that in case no other area is reserved for Harijan Abadi in the Village or if the area which is likely to be used for the construc­tion of the community hall requires to be, suitably compensated then he may provide for an alternative site of an equal area to be reserved for Harijan Abadi.;