B.L. Yadava, J. - (1.) These three analogous petitions preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, are directed against the judgment and order dated 30.1.1992 (Annexure III) to the petition, rendered by the Deputy Director of Consolidation of Holding Act 1953 (for short the Act) allowing the Revisions No. 2352/464 (Baij Nath etc. v. Harish Chandra etc. ) and making consequential change in chak No. 270-A, Baij Nath and Vishwanath, and chak No. 396, Raj Murat, Chak No. 397 Ram Surat, and Chak No. 551, Harish Chandra. In these petitions the relief sought is for a writ or certiorari quashing the judgment and order dated. 30.1.1992.
(2.) Counter and re-joiner affidavits have been exchanged and the learned counsel for the parties agreed that the petitions itself may be decided on merit, that is why, I proceed to decide these three petitions by a common judgment on merits.
(3.) The parties of the petitions are co-sharers and some of them are member of the some family, but in a state imposed litigation under Section 9, 9-A and 20 of the Act, they have to contest each other. The controversy mainly centered round the allotment of different portions of a big plot No. 151 acres 15, 74 Acre situate in village Unch Gaon, Pergana Anguli, Tehsil Shahganj, District Jaunpur. As it was exceptionally a big plot consequently were there bound to be difference in the valuation in respect of different portion of this plot and some other plots including plot No. 252, 440 and 447 depending upon the nature of the land, availability of irrigation facilities and its proximity to the Abadi in the village. Assistant Consolidation Officer, assigned valuation of 10 paisa, 30 paise and 50 paisa, in respect of different portions, whereas it was changed at the stage of consolidation officer, decided the objections (Annexure II to the writ petition No. 15367 of 1992). and thereafter appeals preferred, were decided by the Assistant SEttlement Officer, Consolidation vide his judgment dated 14.5.1990 (Annexure II to the Writ petition No. 2352/464 (Baij Nath and other v. Harish Chand and other was leading revisions. This leading Revisions was party allowed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation under the impugned judgment dated 30.1.1992, relying upon the enquiry report of the Settlement Officer of Consolidation, dated 7-11-1990, in which fraud was proved in assigning valuation. A true copy of this report dated. 7-11-1990 has been filed as Annexure No. 2, to Writ petition No. 16556 of 24640 of 1992, (Harish Chandra v. Deputy Director of Consolidation and others ) that report was forwarded earlier by the consolidation officer by his order dated 14.9.1990 (Annexure C.A. 6 in the writ petition No. 16556 of 1992 Raj Moorat Panday v. Deputy Director of Consolidation, Jaunpur and other ).;