R.H.Zaidi, J. - (1.) Heard learned counsel for the parties.
(2.) By means of this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioners pray for issuance of a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated 8.6.1992 by which the Settlement Officer Consolidation allowed the appeal filed by respondents No. 3 and 4 and the order dated 31.8.1992 by which the revision filed by the petitioners was dismissed by respondent No. 1.
(3.) The relevant facts of the case giving rise to the present petition, in brief, are that the petitioners and respondents No. 3 and 4 were allotted chaks by the Assistant Consolidation Officer. Plot No.126 was the original plot of the petitioners and of respondent No. 4 while Plot No. 65 was the original plot of respondent No. 3. Both these plots are situated side by side. The Assistant Consolidation Officer valued Plot No. 65 at 90 paise while southern portion of plot No. 126 was valued at 80 paise. Thus, northern portion of both these plots was valued at 90 paise. The petitioners' chak was proposed on plot No. 65 and 126 on the land, the value of which was fixed at 90 paise while the contesting respondents were allotted land towards southern side, the valuation of which was fixed at 80 paise, as stated above. According to the petitioners, because of aforesaid allotment, the area of their chak was reduced.. Consequently, they filed an objection under Section 20 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, for short 'the Act', regarding valuation of the land contending that the land allotted to them should also be valued at 80 paise. Parties produced evidence in support of their cases. The Consolidation Officer made local inspection and reduced the valuation of plot No. 65 from 90 to 80 paise by his order dated 6.4.1992. It may be noted that in the objection filed by the. petitioners before the Consolidation Officer, the contesting respondents No. 3 and 4 were not impleaded as parties. As soon as they came to know about the order passed by the Consolidation Officer dated 6.4.1992, they filed an appeal before the Settlement Officer Consolidation. It was contended that the land of plot No. 65 was equally good and fertile as of plot No. 126. The Settlement Officer Consolidation also made local inspection and perused the material on the record. After hearing the parties, the appeal filed by the respondents was allowed and the valuation of plot No. 65 was raised from 80 paise to 90 paise by the Settlement Officer Consolidation by his judgment and order dated 8.6.1992. The petitioners thereafter filed a revision against the order passed by the Settlement Officer Consolidation before the Deputy Director of Consolidation. The Deputy Director of Consolidation made local inspection and perused the material on the record. After hearing the parties, the revision filed by the petitioners was dismissed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation vide order dated 31.8.1992. Hence the present petition.;