Ashok Bhushan, J. - (1.) Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner.
(2.) By this writ petition the petitioner has prayed for quashing of the order dated 25.7.2001 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation. The facts of the case as emerge from the writ petition are that during the consolidation proceedings in the village dispute arose between the parties regarding share of each party. Certain persons filed objections under section 9-A (2) of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act for declaration of their shares. The Consolidation Officer framed two issues namely, whether the objectors are co-shares and what is the share of parties. Consolidation Officer vide order dated 15.9.1995 decided the objections and allotted different shares to the co-sharers. An appeal was filed against the aforesaid judgment by Chiranji Lal The said appeal has been allowed by the Settlement Officer of Consolidation vide his order dated 31.8.1996 and the order of the Consolidation Officer was set aside as without jurisdiction. The Settlement Officer of Consolidation allocated different shares to various parties. A revision was filed by Ramchandi and others against the aforesaid order. Before the Deputy Director of Consolidation two principal submissions were made. The first submission made on behalf of the revisionists was that those co-sharers who have executed the sale deed are not entitled to equal share and their shares may be reduced. Secondly, it was submitted that certain co-sharers have made Abadi in the agricultural holding which has also been kept out of consolidation hence their shares are to be reduced proportionately and the Settlement Officer of Consolidation while determining the shares of parties have not taken into consideration the aforesaid facts. The Deputy Director of Consolidation has set aside the order of the Settlement Officer of Consolidation and has remanded the matter. The Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the order of the Consolidation Officer was without jurisdiction since the objection was filed by only two persons and the Consolidation Officer could not have passed any order with regard to issue which was not raise in the objection. The Counsel for the petitioner has further stated that the Settlement Officer of Consolidation has taken into consideration the sale deed executed by co-sharers.
(3.) I have considered the submissions of the Counsel for the petitioner and have perused the record. The Deputy Director of Consolidation has after considering the submissions of the revisionists, I found substance in the submission and has remanded the matter for redetermination of shares. The submission which found favour with the Deputy Director of Consolidation was that the shares of those co-tenure holders who executed the sale deed will be reduced and the shares of those co-sharers who have made Abadi should also be reduced proportionately and all these questions will be required to be considered by the Settlement Officer of Consolidation. The submission of the Counsel for the petitioner that objections was only by two persons hence the Consolidation Officer was not justified in determining the shares. When the dispute before the Consolidation Officer is with regard to determination of shares of parties the consolidation authorities are required to consider all relevant factors which are necessary to be considered while determining the shares. The execution of the sale deed by co-sharers to other persons is relevant consideration which have effect on the share. The second reason given by the Deputy Director of Consolidation is also relevant. The tenure holder who is using a particular portion of the agricultural holding as abadi which has been kept out of consolidation, has also to be taken into consideration so that the other co-sharers may not be in disadvantageous position. The Deputy Director of Consolidation did not commit any error in remanding the matter for determination of the aforesaid issues. Petitioner in no way can be said to have prejudiced by the orders since he will have an opportunity to claim determination of his share in accordance with law. I do not find any error in the order of the Deputy Director of Consolidation. It is however, observed that since the objection is pending since long the Settlement Officer of Consolidation will endeavour to decide the appeal expeditiously so that the shares of the parties to be determined at any early date. The writ petition is dismissed^subject to above observations.;