S.K.Singh, J. - (1.) By means of this writ petitions, petitioners have challenged the judgment of Deputy Director of Consolidation dated 30.7.2001 by which revision filed by the respondent No. 3 has been allowed.
(2.) Proceedings relates to section 20 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act which is in respect to adjustment of chaks between the parties. Petitioners are chak holder No. 334 whereas respondent No. 3 is chak holder No. 44 which was allotted to them at the stage of Assistant Consolidation Officer. Petitioners claims that besides other original plots they have plot No. 268/1 as their largest part of holding over which they have their pumping set i.e. private source of irrigation. It is claimed that petitioners were given five chaks at the stage of Assistant Consolidation Officer, details of which has been given in para 6 of the writ petition. Respondent No. 3 was allotted three chaks out of which one chak was on plot No. 268/1 which belongs to the petitioners. Against the proposed adjustment petitioners filed objection which was allowed by the Consolidation Officer by judgment dated 13.3.95 and they were adjusted over plot No. 268 besides other changes. Appeal filed by the opposite parties was dismissed by the Settlement Officer Consolidation vide judgment dated 19.3.2001 against which revision was allowed by Deputy Director of Consolidation by judgment dated 30.2.2001 (Annexure-5 to the writ petition) which is under challenge.
(3.) Submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the judgment of the Deputy Director of Consolidation is totally perverse, erroneous and is in violation of the principle of natural justice. It is submitted that plot No. 268/1 is largest part of holding of the petitioners where their private source of irrigation is situated and therefore unless there is cogent reason for taking away that plot from the petitioner's chak that cannot be allotted to the respondent No. 3. It is further submitted that before the Deputy Director of Consolidation petitioners have moved an application on 4.6.2001 (Annexure-2 to the writ petition) for making spot inspection of plot No. 268 in which their private source of irrigation is situated and also to verify correctness of averment of opposite party about his house and Sahan etc. as claimed and also in respect to nature of the original holding of the respondent i.e. plot No. 85 which is of very bad quality having Bhita, Koos etc. being not fit for cultivation but the Deputy Director of Consolidation without passing any order on that application either way, by getting report from the Assistant Consolidation Officer in respect of plot No. 315 suo-moto and by referring that report has allowed revision by which substantial portion of plot No. 268 has been taken away from the chak of the petitioners causing serious prejudice to them. Lastly it is submitted that at the stage of Deputy Director of Consolidation the land which v,a reserved for general Abadi, Pokhari, Chi Road and for plantation could not be effected without assigning any cogent reason for the same and thus the aforesaid exercise is clearly illegal, without jurisdiction and is totally improper on the fact of the present case apparently to extend undue advantage to the respondent No. 3.;