K.N. Misra, J. - (1.) THE Petitioners in this writ petition have challenged the order dated 7th June, 1983, passed by the Assistant Director of Consolidation Banda, by which he has directed that measurements of chaks and delivery of possession over the chaks to' the tenure -holders be got made by the consolidation officer and its compliance report be submitted to him so that further proceedings regarding hearing and disposal of pending revisions under Section 48 of the Uttar Pradesh Consolidation of Holdings Act (hereinafter to be referred to as the Act) arising out of chak allotment proceedings be done by him. In the impugned order he has observed that the pending revisions can be legally and appropriately decided only after measurement and demarcation of the chaks allotted to the tenure -holders.
(2.) I have heard learned Counsel for the Petitioners Sri Vijay Manohar Sahai and Sri B.L. Yadav, learned Standing Counsel at some length on merits. It has been averred in the writ petition that against proposed allotment of chaks made by the Assistant Consolidation Officer, several tenure holders including the Petitioners filed objections under Section 20 of the Act. The Consolidation Officer dismissed the objections of the Petitioners and so aggrieved by that order the Petitioners filed appeals before the Settlement Officer, Consolidation Some other tenure holders had also filed appeals being aggrieved by the order passed by the Consolidation Officer. These appeals were dismissed and thereupon the Petitioners and several other tenure holders filed revisions which are pending for disposal before the Assistant Director of Consolidation arrayed as the opposite party. The Petitioners have further averred that till today several tenure holders in village Tindwara, district Banda are in possession over their respective original plots of their holdings and the chaks have not yet been demarcated in pursuance of the orders passed by the Settlement Officer, Consolidation. The proposed allotted chaks have not yet become final as the revisions arising out of proceedings under Section 20 of the Act are still pending for disposal. The Petitioners have asserted that on their original plots they have sown kharif crop, namely, Paddy, Jwar, Arhar, Urad etc. and the plants have grown more than six inches and as such the Petitioners will be put to a great loss and suffering if they would be dispossessed at the present moment. Other tenure holders have also sown Kharif crop on their respective original plots of their holdings. Learned Counsel for the Petitioners urged that the Assistant Director of Consolidation has erred in directing demarcation of chaks and delivery of possession over the same to the tenure holders without proceeding to decide pending revisions on merits. His further contention was that the hearing and disposal of pending revisions could not be legally deferred till demarcation and delivery of possession over the proposed chaks allotted to the tenure holders. There is no provision in the Act or the Rules framed thereunder providing that the revisions cannot be heard until demarcation of the chaks in pursuance of the impugned order was made. The Assistant Director of Consolidation, thus, acted illegally and with material irregularity in exercise of jurisdiction resulting in grave miscarriage of justice in deferring the hearing in the pending revisions and directing delivery of possession over the allotted chaks although against proposed allotment of chaks, objections by several tenure holders were filed and the same have not yet been finally disposed of.
(3.) LEARNED Chief Standing Counsel urged that the writ petition deserves to be dismissed straightaway on, the ground that the Petitioners have not impleaded the tenure holders who would be put into possession over their allotted chaks on demarcation of their respective chaks in pursuance of the impugned order. Thus, without impleading all the tenure holders of the unit, the writ petition cannot be entertained and disposed of on merits. I have given my anxious consideration to these arguments but i am unable to agree to the said contentions of the learned Chief Standing Counsel.;