- (1.) By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, Petitioner has sought for the issue of writ of certiorari, quashing judgment and order of the Assistant Director of Consolidation, Jaunpur dated September 24, 1979, passed by him upon a reference made to him by the Settlement Officer, Consolidation, in exercise of powers under Sub-section (3) of Section 48 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act').
(2.) On dispute having arisen between the Petitioner and the opposite parties in the matter of allotment of chaks under Section 20 of the Act, the matter ultimately stood decided by the Deputy Director of Consolidation by the order dated April 16, 1971 in exercise of his powers of revision under Section 48 of the Act. As a result of settlement of this dispute, the Petitioner was allotted chak No. 13 and the opposite party No. 3 was allotted Chak No. 280. Both these chaks, so allotted, were in front of the houses, respectively, of the Petitioner and the opposite party No. 3. In the year 1976, the opposite party moved two applications before the Deputy Director of Consolidation. The first application dated March 10, 1976, stated that the opposite party was given chak of a lesser valuation of 5.22 annas. By the other application dated 24th of April, 1976, the opposite party claimed that this deficiency be made good from plot No. 623 which had been set apart for khaliyan and playground in the statement of principles prepared originally under Section 19 of the Act and it was prayed that to this extent the statement of principles be modified. On coming to know of these applications, the Petitioner objected to the same on the ground that the dispute in respect of the allotment of chaks had already become final on April 16, 1971, when the revision of the opposite party had been dismissed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation. The Petitioner further stated that even the question of lesser valuation of land having been allotted was a question which could not ought to have been raised by the opposite party in the revision under Section 48 of Act and this not having been done, it is not now open to him to raise this question on the principle of constructive res-judicata. Lastly, the Petitioner's case was that in case, any additional land was considered necessary to be allotted to the opposite party, the same may be allotted from the "Bachat Land". The Petitioner as well as the members of the Land Management Committee and the Pradhan of the Gaon-Sabha filed applications to the effect that the land of plot No. 623 be not allotted to the opposite party as the same was being used for khaliyan and play-ground for the children of the village who studied in the school of the neighbouring village. On June 11, 1976, the Deputy Director, after hearing both the parties, directed the Settlement Officer, Consolidation, to report as to whether there was any "bachat land" available in the village so that the reference may be made. The Settlement Officer, following the direction of the Deputy Director, prepared a reference dated August 17, 1978, and referred the same to the Deputy Director. In this reference, it was stated that "bachat land" of valuation of 30.35 annas were available in the village and land of valuation of 5.22 annas therefrom could be allotted to the opposite party. This reference was decided by the Assistant Director of Consolidation by the judgment and order dated September 24, 1979, which has been impugned in the present petition.
(3.) The Assistant Director in deciding this reference took the view that the land allotted to the opposite party was deficient in valuation of 5.22 annas and consequently it was necessary to allot land of this valuation to the opposite party. While proceeding tp consider the question of allotment of this additional land he did not allot the same from the "bachat land" upon the view that 4 chaks should not be allotted to the opposite party, and he proceeded to make amendment in the chaks already allotted to the parties. What he did was that he extended chak No. 280, earlier allotted to the opposite party, towards north side extending over the portion of chak No. 13, earlier allotted to the Petitioner. The area so extended towards chak No. 13 fell in front of the house of the Petitioner. As far as the Petitioner was concerned, he extended remaining land of chak No. 13 by adding to it the land in plot No. 623 which was earlier reserved under the statement of principles for khaliyan and play-ground. He further observed that this land was not being used for these purposes and was, in fact, unnecessarily so reserved.;