K. N. Misra, J. - (1.) :-
(2.) THIS petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is directed against the order dated 29th February, 1980 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation in the matter arising out of chak allotment proceedings. The petitioner, who is chak holder No. 125 was allotted two chaks as against his original holding. His first chak was carved out on plots No. 169 etc. of 0.99 acres and second chak was allotted on plots No. 61 etc. of 0.945 acres. Opposite parties Nos. 3 and 4 chak holders No. 85, were aggrieved by the proposed allotment of chaks hence they preferred an objection under Section 20 claiming allotment of the chak near village abadi on plot No. 169 in which they were co-tenants alongwith the petitioner. Their contention was that the chak which has been allotted to them on plots Nos. 15 and 16 etc. is far away from village abadi hence they are unable to extend their abadi. Thus they prayed that some land may be allotted to them on plot No. 169 which is adjacent to their house. Opposite party No: 2 Tej Bahadur, Chak holder No. 161 had also filed objection. He is also a cotenure holder alongwith the petitioner. He claimed that some land be allotted to him near village abadi. The Consolidation Officer dismissed the objections vide order dated 13th February, 1978. Opposite parties Nos. 2 to 4 preferred appeals which were heard by the Settlement Officer (Consolidation) alongwith other appeals filed by other tenure holders. The appeals were decided by the Settlement Officer (Consolidation) vide order dated 9th July 1978 but by that order the chaks of the petitioner were not affected. Opposite party No. 2 as well as opposite parties Nos. 3 and 4 preferred revisions under Section 48 of the Act. These revisions were heard alongwith certain other revisions filed by other tenure holders and they were disposed of by the Deputy Director of Consolidation by a common judgment and order dated 29th February 1980. By this order both the chaks of the petitioner were affected and he was allotted a third chak on plots Nos. 295M, 296M and 297M of the valuation of 6 annas. The Deputy Director of Consolidation found that opposite parties Nos. 3 and 4, who were co-tenure holder alongwith the petitioner in plot No. 169, deserve to be allotted some land at that place so that they may be able to extend their abadi. He further found that opposite party No. 2 was allotted a chak far away from village abadi on the bank of the river and he was allotted land only measuring 8 acres on plot No. 60 near village abadi where he should have been allotted more land as he was also a co-tenure holder alongwith the petitioner. He further found that the petitioner's both chaks were carved out near village abadi and as such considering all the circumstances and the facts of the case he made an alteration in the chak of the petitioner and allotted him a third chak on plot No. 295. The petitioner has challenged this order of opposite party No. 1 in this writ petition.
(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner being a small tenure holder should not have been allotted three chaks by the Deputy Director of Consolidation and as such his order stands vitiated in law. I do not find any merit in this submission. Under Section 19 of the Act a tenure holder can be allotted three chaks. He could also be allotted more than three chaks on the approval in writing of the Deputy Director of Consolidation as provided under the proviso to sub-section (e) of Section 19 (1) of the Act. Thus I find that no Jurisdictional error has been committed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation in allotting three chaks to the petitioner. The petitioner is a co-tenure holder alongwith opposite parties nos. 2 to 4 in certain holdings. He was allotted both the chaks near village abadi while his said co-tenure holders were not allotted land near village abadi to which they were found entitled. The Deputy Director of Consolidation has maintained both the chaks of the petitioner which he was allotted near village abadi but in order to accommodate his co-tenure holders he has taken out certain land from those allotted chaks and has given him a third chak on the aforesaid plots nos. 295 etc. of the valuation of only 6 annas. In this view of the matter I find that no injustice has been caused to the petitioner. In the matter of allotment equities are also to be adjusted among the tenure holders and the allotment has to be made in such a manner which may not prejudice any other tenure holder specially the co-tenure holders. In this view of the matter the allotment of a third chak to the petitioner cannot be said to be unjust or arbitrary nor it is violative of any provision of law. Learned counsel further argued that the Deputy Director of Consolidation has passed the impugned order without making local inspection and as such the impugned order stands vitiated in law. I do not find any substance in this argument. Under Section 21, sub-clause (3), it is incumbent upon the Consolidation Officer to make local inspection while deciding the objections and it has been provided that the Settlement Officer (Consolidation) while hearing the appeal may make local inspection of the plots in dispute after notice to the parties concerned and to the consolidation committee. Nowhere under Section 21 of the Act or Section 48 of the Act it is provided that the Deputy Director of Consolidation while deciding the revision arising out of proceedings in the matter for allotment of chak should make a local inspection. In the absence of any such requirement under the Act and the rules framed thereunder it cannot be said that the Deputy Director of Consolidation is bound to make a local inspection, before deciding the revision in chak matters. The Deputy Director of Consolidation may, if he so thinks proper, make local inspection while deciding the revision in chak matters but if he has not made any local inspection and has passed the order in the revision it cannot be said that the order passed by him suffers from violation of any mandatory provision of law in his not making the local inspection before deciding the revision. I, therefore, do not find any substance in the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner.;