K.M.Dayal, J. - (1.) TODAY the case was fixed for deciding the stay matter. The stay matter would have taken a longer time than the petition itself. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties, with their consent, on merits.
(2.) AS revision was filed by Dur Vijai Singh which was numbered as Revision No. 495 under section 48 of the Consolidation of Holdings Act, Dur Vijai Singh v. Raj Bahadur Singh and others. The grievance of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that in the order passed by the Deputy Director, Consolidation, there was no direction to disturb his Chak No. 22 still it was changed. After perusing the entire order passed by the Deputy Director, Consolidation, I find that the contention of the learned counsel is correct. The learned counsel for the respondent argued that the Deputy Director Consolidation has observed that the change in the chak of Dur Vijai Singh, revisionist, would also effect Chak No. 87, 84, 115 etc. In the certified copy which has been filed by the petitioner along with the writ petition word 'etc' does not find place. The learned counsel for the respondent has produced another certified copy today which shows the word "Adi" has been interpolated and signed in the order in a different ink and pen. According to the learned counsel the word 'etc'. (Adi) included all other chaks including the petitioner's chak. The word 'Adi' was present in the original order. To me it appears an interpolation made after the copy of the order was issued to the petitioner. However, its presence or absence does not make any difference. The D. D. C, should not have permitted the chaks to be changed at the whim of the consolidator who prepared the adjustment chart. He should have specified the chaks and should have heard the respective chak holders before the proposal of plots to be taken out and to be given in the chaks was finalised. He should have applied his mind to the proposed changes and its effect. The order that has been passed by the Deputy Director, Consolidation, gave an opportunity to the subordinate staff to include whatever they wanted at their sweet will. The Revisional Authority had no occasion to apply his mind to the changes judicially and in accordance with rules of natural justice i. e. after hearing the parties effected. If the interpretation suggested by the learned counsel for the respondent is accepted, the chaks in the entire village could have been changed by the consolidator. The learned counsel for the respondent next contended that in the order It was mentioned that the changes that have been shown in the correction table would form part of the judgment. That does not make any difference. The correction table can be prepared in accordance with the order only after the judgment is pronounced. In any case the Deputy Director, Consolidation, does not appear to have at all considered the desirability of taking out the plots and giving other plots to the petitioner's chak as per adjustment chart. The order shows that the Deputy Director did not at all apply his mind to the petitioner's chak no. 22. The Deputy Director, Consolidation, has no where mentioned chak No. 22 as one of the chaks to be effected by his order. In the result, the writ petition is allowed. The judgment and order passed by the Deputy Director, Consolidation, is quashed. He is directed to hear the revision in accordance with law and observations made above. If any chak is to be effected, the concerned chak holder has to be heard on merits before making any alteration in his chair. There will be no order as to costs. Petition allowed.;