KRISHNA MURARI,J. - (1.) HEARD Sri Manish Goyal, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Pradeep Kumar Srivastava for the respondent.
(2.) THIS petition arises out of chak allotment proceedings. Petitioner is chak holder no. 515 whereas the contesting respondent is chak-holder of chak no.514. Admittedly, both the chaks are adjacent to each other. Vide order dated 12.12.1994 passed by the Consolidation Officer the chak of the petitioner was disturbed against which he went up in appeal, which was allowed in part vide order dated 22.2.1995. The petitioner challenged the said order by filing a revision. The main grievance of the petitioner was that his chak has been made longitudinal and its width is only 23.5 meter as such it was unfit for cultivation and it should be made rectangular. Before the Deputy Director of Consolidation, with the consent of the parties, their chaks were amalgamated and the petitioner was allotted chak on the southern side whereas the answering respondent was allotted chak on the northern side and accordingly amendment chart was prepared. After sometime contesting respondent moved an application on the allegation that the amendment chart is not in accordance with the judgement and due to mistake the chak allotted to him on the northern portion has been valued at 60 paise whereas the valuation of the said land is 40 paise on account of which his area has been substantially reduced and the same may be corrected. Deputy Director of Consolidation finding that due to clerical mistake the northern portion allotted in the chak of the petitioner in amendment chart has been valued at 60 paise whereas it should be only 40 paise, allowed the application. It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the impugned order amounts to review of the earlier order for which the consolidation authorities have no power or jurisdiction. Reliance in support of the contention has been placed on a Full Bench decision of this Court in the case of Smt. Shivraji vs. Deputy Director of Consolidation, Allahabad and others, 1997(88) RD 562 wherein it has been held that the consolidation authorities are not vested with any power of review and therefore, cannot reopen any proceedings or cannot review or revise earlier order.
(3.) IN reply, learned counsel for the respondent has tried to justify the impugned order.;