Krishna Murari, J. - (1.) HEARD Sri Faujdar Rai for the Petitioners and Sri Ram Nivas Singh for the contesting Respondent.
(2.) FACTS , giving rise to the dispute, are as under. Revision filed by predecessor -in -interest of contesting Respondent challenging the order passed by the Settlement Officer Consolidation in an appeal arising out of chak allotment proceedings was dismissed by the Joint Director of Consolidation on the ground of limitation as well as on merits by merely observing that he has no case and adjustment in the chak is proper. This order was challenged by this Court by filing Civil Misc. Writ petition No. 9844 of 1980.
(3.) THIS Court finding that the order passed by the Settlement Officer Consolidation is not available as the entire record got destroyed in fire in the record -room, in the ends of justice allowed the writ petition and remanded the case back to the Deputy Director of Consolidation to decide afresh in the light of respective claim and keeping in mind the mandate of Section 19 of the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act (for short the 'Act). It may be relevant to quote the following observations made in the judgment. This is no dispute about the fact that record in respect to appeal and order passed by the appellate authority is not available which is stated to have been destroyed in fire which is said to have taken place in the Record Room. The stand of the Petitioner is that on 1.12.1979 when measurement was to take place, Petitioner came to know about the alleged order of Settlement Officer Consolidation. A Question -Answer has also been filed in this respect. Be that as it may, this fact has been dealt with by the Deputy Director of Consolidation but keeping in mind the non availability of the order of the appellate authority and as no details are here to ascertain the grounds on which, appeal was allowed, this Court in the ends of justice thinks it proper that irrespective of the changes as has been made by the appellate authority both parties are entitled to get their adjustment finalized by the Deputy Director of Consolidation in the light of their respective claim. Thus, it will be for the revisional court to adjust the chaks of the parties in the light of their respective claim keeping in mind the mandate of Section 19 of the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act and also keeping in mind the comparative hardship and inconvenience of the parties and if it is necessary after making spot inspection after notice to the parties. For the reasons recorded above, this petition succeeds and is allowed. The impugned judgment of the Joint Director of Consolidation dated 23.7.1980 is hereby quashed and the matter is sent back to the concerned revisional court to decide the claim of parties afresh after providing adequate opportunity to them, preferably within four months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order, without allowing any unwarranted adjournment to either of the parties, unless it is required for very compelling reason.;