R.H. Zaidi, J. - (1.) Heard learned counsel for the parties and also perused the record.
(2.) In all above noted writ petitions, common questions of law and fact are involved. They are also directed against the same orders passed by the Consolidation authorities. They were, therefore, as desired by learned counsel for the parties, heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment. Writ Petition No. 16984 of 1992, Smt. Uttama Devi alias Dayamati v. Deputy Director of Consolidation shall be the leading case.
(3.) Name of the petitioners Smt. Uttama Devi alias Dayamati was mutated in revenue papers in place of Ram Lakhan over the land in dispute by order dated 4.8.1990 passed by the Consolidation Officer. The Assistant Consolidation Officer prepared provisional consolidation scheme and proposed the chaks of the parties. The petitioner filed an objection before the Assistant Consolidation Officer claiming that plot No. 30 was her original plot. It was situated by the side of the road, therefore, same should be allotted to her. The objection filed by the petitioner was contested by the persons, who are petitioners in other connected writ petitions. The parties, on receipt of the notices, produced evidence in support of their cases, oral and documentary, before the Consolidation Officer. The Consolidation Officer, after hearing the parties and going through the evidence on the record, partly allowed the objection of the petitioner and made certain changes in chaks of the parties as proposed by the Assistant Consolidation Officer, by order dated 12.2.1990. Aggrieved by the said order, four appeals were filed by the parties before the Settlement Officer Consolidation, petitioner's appeal being appeal No. 2119/179, Smt Uttama Devi alias Dayamati v. Ram Dulare and others. All the four appeals were heard together by the Settlement Officer Consolidation. The Settlement Officer Consolidation also partly allowed the appeals and gave another portion of plot No. 30 to the petitioner, by judgment and order dated 15.5.1991 for the reasons recorded in the judgment. Even after the judgment of the Settlement Officer Consolidation the dispute between the parties did not come to an end. Against the said judgment, as many as five revisions were filed before the Deputy Director of Consolidation. Petitioner's revision was registered as Revision No. 2712/764, Smt. Uttama Devi alias Dayamati v. Ram Dulare and others. All revisions were consolidated and were heard together. It was urged on behalf of the petitioner that the whole plot No. 30 should be allotted in the chak of the petitioner. On the other hand, the contesting respondents also made claims which suited to them, for allotment of the plots in their chaks. The Deputy Director of Consolidation after hearing all the parties, partly allowed the revisions filed by the parties by judgment and order dated 19.11.1991 and made necessary adjustment in their chaks. Major portion of plot No. 30 was allotted in the chak of the petitioner, Smt. Uttama Devi. Only 16 biswas out of the said plot was given to others by judgment and order dated 19.11.1991.Similarly, in the chaks of other revisionists, necessary adjustments were made as it is evident from the order and the adjustment table annexed thereto.;