K. N. Misra, J. - (1.) :-
(2.) THIS petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is directed against the orders dated 12th January, 1977 and 8th July, 1977 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation, opposite party no. 1, in proceedings under Section 48, sub-clause (3), of the U. P. C. H. Act, hereinafter referred to as the Act. Briefly stated the facts are that a chak road was provided on plot nos. 525/0. 02, 527/0. 02, 507/0. 8, 509/0. 01 and 502/0. 01. This Chak road was provided in between the chaks of several tenure holders. Towards east of the said chak road the chak of petitioner no. 2, chak holder no. 118, was situated and towards west of it the chak of petitioner no. 1 was situated. The tenure holders were put into possession over their respective allotted chak land in the unit on 3rd March, 1970 and since then they were using the chak road in question for reaching their respective allotted chaks. Petitioners nos. 1 and 2 were also using the said chak road for reaching their chaks and they have been using it for taking their bullocks and bullock-carts etc. from the abadi to their respective chaks. No objection was raised against the carvation of the said chak road in. proceedings under Section 20 of the Act. It appears that opposite parties nos. 2 to 8, who had helped the consolidation officials during the intensive family planning drive by providing some sterilisation cases, applied to the Consolidation Officer on 16th November, 1976 for converting the aforesaid chak road into a nali. The Consolidation Officer called for a report from the Assistant Consolidation Officer vide his order dated 16th November, 1976 and on the same day the Assistant Consolidation Officer submitted his report mentioning therein that the applicants Udit Narain and others have prayed that the chak road which exists on plots nos. 525 etc. be converted into a nali. No further comment was made in the matter as to why the chak road should be converted into a nali and whether it will be appropriate and desirable to convert the said chak road into a nali or not. The report of the Assistant Consolidation Officer is contained in Annexure 2 and from it it does not appear that ne had heard the petitioners or other tenure holders between whose chaks the said chak road was situated and was used by them as such. The Consolidation Officer on that very day, i.e. 16th November, 1976, submitted the papers to the Settlement Officer (Consolidati6n) for necessary action mentioning therein that approval be accorded for converting the chak road into nali. He also mentioned therein that the applicants had helped in the family planning drive. His report is contained in Annexure 3. He had also not given any notice to the affected tenure-holders nor he had given them any opportunity of hearing. He had also not mentioned as to why the chak road should be converted into a nali. The Deputy Director of Consolidation vide his order dated 12th January, 1977 approved the proposed conversion of chak road into a nali. The petitioners alongwith thirty other tenure-holders filed an application on 15th Feb, 1977 before the Deputy Director of Consolidation for recalling the aforesaid ex-parte order dated 12th January, 1977 and prayed that the case be decided after spot inspection and hearing. This application was signed by the Up Pradhan of the Gaon Sabha and four other members of the Gaon Sabha had also signed it. The Deputy Director of Consolidation vide order dated 8th July, 1977 rejected the said application and maintained the order dated 12th January, 1977. The petitioners have challenged the said orders passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation in this writ petition. Learned counsel for the Gaon Sabha, Sri K. B. Garg, raised a preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of the writ petition filed by the petitioners against the impugned orders. He contended that the land in question, which was a chak road, had vested in the Gaon Sabha and as such only the Gaon Sabha could raise an objection against the impugned orders. The petitioners have no locus standi to file writ petition challenging the impugned orders as they cannot claim any subsisting right in the land in question. He further contended that the petitioners have not impleaded all other tenure-holders of the village who were using the chak road in question for approaching their respective chaks and as such the writ petition is also bad for non-joinder of necessary parties. I do not find any merit in these submissions.
(3.) IT is not disputed that the chak road was provided in between the chaks of petitioners. This chak road was used by the petitioners for carrying their bullocks and bullock-carts etc. to their chak land. This chak road was also used for the said purpose by other tenure-holders whose chaks were situated on both the sides of the chak road in question ever since March 1970. They are certainly affected by the impugned orders converting the chak road into a nali. The petitioners have been materially prejudiced by the impugned orders as they have been deprived by the impugned orders the facility of chak road which they have been enjoying ever since allotment of chaks to tenure-holders. They are thus interested persons and being aggrieved by the orders they are entitled to seek quashing of those orders by this petition. Learned counsel for the Gaon Sabha placed reliance upon a decision in writ petition no. 2192 of 1974, Vasudeo Singh v. State of U. P. decided on 10th March, 1980, and contended that in view of the decision recorded in the said petition the petitioners cannot maintain the writ petition against the impugned orders. I have gone through the order passed in the said writ petition and I am of the opinion that the said case is clearly distinguishable. In the aforesaid writ petition the involved land was reserved for abadi purposes. It was subsequently allotted to the opposite parties. The petitioners, whose house was situate in front of the said land, which was reserved for extension of abadi, challenged the said order claiming easementary right in the said land and contended that it should not have been allotted to the opposite parties. By the aforesaid order R. M. Sahai, J. on these facts held that since the land, which was reserved for abadi purposes, had vested in the Gaon Sabha hence the Gaon Sabha alone could be the person aggrieved and the petitioner who claimed easementary rights could not file the writ petition and for determination of those rights he could approach the appropriate authority. In the present case the chak road in question was provided for the benefit of the concerned tenure holders including the petitioners whose chaks were situated by the side of the chak road. It is not disputed that the petitioners were not using the chak road in question for the purposes of carrying their bullocks and bullock-carts etc. to their chak land. They would now be deprived of 'that facility and as such they are aggrieved by the impugned orders and can certainly maintain the writ petition;