S.K. Singh, J. - (1.) Heard Counsel for the petitioner and learned Counsel who appears for the contesting opposite party.
(2.) The dispute in this petition relates to allotment/adjustment over plot No. 426 which is admittedly the original holding of the respondent. There also appears to be no dispute about the fact that this plot was subject to valuation and it was also subject to allotment proceedings. A portion of the land in question was allotted in favour of Hanif against whom ultimately the maiter was taken by the opposite parties to the revisional Court who by its judgment dated 21.7.1993 allowed the revision and allotment in favour of Hanif was set aside and the land was given in the chak of the revisionist/opposite parties. It appears that the part of that plot was allotted in the chak of the petitioners to which no objection was filed by the opposite parties at any stage either under section 20 of the U.P.C.H. Act or directly by taking up the matter to the higher forum. It also appears that when the matter was contested in respect to the portion of the land in dispute before the Deputy Director of Consolidation at that stage also the opposite parties never took the matter in respect to the allotment in favour of the petitioner which is admittedly in respect to the portion of that very land. After finalisation of proceedings under section 20 of the U.P.C.H. Act petitioner appears to have obtained permission from tire Settlement Officer Consolidation to raise constructions over the land which has been allotted to him. Permission was granted by the Settlement Officer Consolidation on 31,8.1995. Pursuant thereof as claimed by the petitioner he has completed foundation and it is at that stage opposite parties appear to have filed objections under section 9-B of the U.P.C.H. Act before the Consolidation Officer with two prayers : (a) the portion of plot No. 426 be excluded from the consolidation proceedings (b) the portion which has been allotted to the petitioner be given in the chak of the opposite parties. The Consolidation Officer allowed the objection of the opposite parties by judgment and order dated 28.8.1995, against which petitioner filed appeal which was allowed by order dated. 10.6.1996, upon which the opposite party filed revision which was allowed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation by judgment and order dated 5.7.1997, which is under challenge before this Court.
(3.) After examination of the matter and on perusal of the pleadings and the materials as has been brought on record there appears to be no dispute about the fact that plot No. 426 (00-12-19) on being valued an area of 10 dhur was allotted in the chak of the petitioner. At initial chak carvation stage remaining portion was allotted in the chak of Hanif against which the matter was taken up to the Deputy Director of Consolidation by the opposite party. The revisional Court on being satisfied with the claim of opposite parties made changes and gave that land to the opposite parties, which was given to Mohd. Hanif. There cannot be any manner of doubt that CH Form 23 on the basis of which opposite parties filed revision happens to be one and the entire area of plot No. 426 was shown to be valued. The opposite parties appears to have chosen to contest the allotment in favour of Hanif but no objection was filed in respect to the allotment in favour of the petitioner. After the permission having been granted by the Settlement Officer Consolidation, petitioner claimed started raising constructions. Although it has been claimed by the opposite parties keeping in mind the nature of the land that land should be kept out of the consolidation but at the same time it was claimed that it may be allotted in their chak. In view of the aforesaid this Court is of the view that both things/claim can not go together. The opposite parties cannot be permitted to claim exclusion of the land from the consolidation proceedings and at the same time its allotment in their favour. The Settlement Officer Consolidation after finding that the allotment has already been made to the petitioner and the chak carvation proceeding has become final, now claim of the opposite parties is not justified allowed appeal but the Deputy Director of Consolidation appears to have not noticed reasoning given by the Settlement Officer Consolidation and various other factors as has been observed by this Court in this order. The required consideration for the revisional Court is to consider that whether the opposite parties were not aware about the allotment of the portion of plot No. 426 in the chak of the petitioner although, on the basis of CH Form 23 the opposite parties contested the matter about allotment of part of the land in favour of one Hanif in which they succeeded as well. The revisional Court is further to consider. that whether non filing of objection under section 20 of the U.P.C.H. Act, raising any grievance against the allotment in favour of the petitioner at appropriate stage can be condoned for the reasons, if any has been given by the opposite party. In the event chak carvation proceedings have become final without any objection from the opposite parties and the petitioner has obtained permission of the Settlement Officer Consolidation to raise construction at this stage on the facts claim of the opposite parties whether can be accepted specially in view of his own claim for allotment of that land. Be as it may as the revisional Court has allowed the revision in an arbitrary manner without considering all these aspects as has been noted by this Court in this order, matter requires fresh consideration before by the Court below.;