H. N. Seth, J. - (1.) BEING aggrieved by the revisional order passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation on 2-2-1980, in proceedings arising under section 20 of the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act), petitioner Hari Narain Mani has approached this Court for relief under Article 226 of the Constitution.
(2.) BRIEFLY stated the facts giving rise to this petition are that in due course village Sakarpar Buzurg, Tappa Dond, pargana Silhat, district Deoria was, in pursuance of the provisions contained in the Act brought under consolidation of holdings operations. The petitioner was tenure-holder of plot Nos. 453/1 (area 09 acres) and 467 (area 73 acres). The consolidation authorities, after preparing village records published the same under section 9 (1) of the Act showing valuation of plot Nos. 453/1 and 467 as 11 annas and 10 annas respectively. According to the petitioner no objection with regard to the valuation of the said plots as mentioned in the records published under section 9(1) of the Act was filed by any one and the same became final under section 11-A thereof. Subsequently the consolidation authorities prepared a provisional consolidation scheme under section 20 of the Act, indicating the chaks and various plots included therein. According to this scheme the petitioner was awarded chak No. 159 with the plots having the valuation equal to that of his original plots. The original plots belonging to the petitioner, namely, plots No. 453/1 and 467, were included in chak No. 33 which was allotted to one Chandrika Mani, respondent No. 2. Being aggrieved by allotment of chaks, Chandrika Mani, respondent No. 2, went up in appeal before the Settlement Officer (Consolidation). His case was that valuation of the two plots, Nos. 453/1 and 467 which were included in his chak (No. 33), as shown in the records published under section 9 of the Act was much in excess of their real value and that this mistake had resulted in land having valuation less than to which be was entitled to being included in his chak. He, therefore, prayed that his chak may be modified accordingly. The Settlement Officer (Consofidatiori) dismissed the appeal filed by Chandrika Mani, who being aggrieved, took the matter up in revision before the Deputy Director of Consolidation. Before the Deputy Director of Consolidation Chandrika Mani reiterated that valuation of plots Nos. 453/1 and 467 included in chak No. 33, allotted to him, was in fact much below 11 annas and 10 annas respectively; and that the chak deserved to be recarved, so as to make good the deficiency in the valuation to which he was entitled. The Deputy Director of Consolidation made spot inspection and after considering the submissions made by the parties, came to the conclusion that proper valuation of plots Nos. 453/1 and 467 was 4 annas and 8 annas respectively (instead of 11 annas and 10 annas, as shown in the records published under section 9 of the Act). This mistake, according to him, resulted in land with valuation less than that to winch Chandrika Mani was entitled to, being included in his chak and correspondingly land of more valuation than to which Hari Narain Mani was entitled to being included in his chak. In the result, he allowed the revision filed by Chandrika Mani arid directed that plot No. 159 which had been included in petitioner's chak No. 159 be excluded from his chak and be included in the chak of Chandrika Mani. Being dissatisfied by the decision of the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Hari Narain Mani has approached this Court for relief under Article 226 of the Constitution.
(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner contended that valuation of plots Nos. 453/1 and 467 as shown in the records prepared under section 9 of the Act having become final under section 11-A of the Act, the Deputy Director of Consolidation had no jurisdiction to reappraise their valuation and to make any alteration in the Chaks allotted to various parties on the basis of such reappraisement. The submission made by the learned counsel for Chandrika Mani, respondent No. 2, on the other hand, is that section 48 of the Act gives very wide powers to the Deputy Director of Consolidation, and that he is fully competent to consider and decide an objection regarding valuation of plots raised by an aggrieved party in proceedings arising under section 20 of the Act. The scheme underlying the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act is that first of all the consolidation authorities have to revise and correct the maps and records under Chapter II of the Act. Section 9 requires that such revised records mentioning valuation of individual plots should be published in the unit. Sub-section (2) of section 9 enables any person having any objection to any entry, including that with regard to the valuation of individual plots, mentioned in the records published under section 9(1), to file his objections. Such objection are then to be disposed of under section 9-A of the Act. Any person aggrieved by disposal of his objections under section 9-A is enabled to file an appeal under section 11 of the Act. Section 11-A then lays down that no objection in respect of valuation of plots etc., relating to the consolidation area which might or ought to have been raised under section 9 but has not been raised, shall be raised or heard at any subsequent stage of the consolidation proceedings. After the records have been revised under Chapter II of the Act, a consolidation scheme showing the allotment of chaks to various tenure-holders as also the plots included in such chak is published under section 19 of the Act. Section 20(1) of the Act requires notice of such scheme to be given to the concerned tenure-holders and to be published in the unit. Subsection (2) of section 20 then lays down that subject to the provisions contained in section 11-A any person to whom notice has been sent under sub-section (1) and any other person affected by the provisional scheme to file objections to such scheme. The provision in sub-section (2) that filing of the objections under section 20 shall be subject to the provisions contained in section 11-A, clearly implies that an objection consideration of which shall have the effect of contravening the provisions of- section 11-A of the Act cannot be taken notice of in proceedings under section 20 of the Act. Accordingly an objection regarding valuation of the various plots in the village which could have been raised under Chapter II of the Act, but was not so raised cannot be allowed to be raised at the stage of proceedings for allotment of chaks under section 20 of the Act and the chaks have to be carved out on the basis of the valuation of plots as mentioned in the records published and finalised under section 9 of the Act.;