- (1.) THE petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking a writ of certiorari quashing the order dated 7.12.2013 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Badaun copy whereof is Annexure 1 to the writ petition. The order impugned has been passed in a revision filed by the respondent no.5 against an order passed by the Settlement Officer Consolidation in proceedings for allotment of chaks.
(2.) THE petitioner is holder of chak no. 35 and 31 while the respondent no.4 is holder of chak nos. 521 and 499. The petitioner not being satisfied with the chak proposed by the Assistant Consolidation Officer preferred an objection. The Consolidation Officer allowed the objection by his order dated 5.5.2012 against which Ramesh Chandra respondent no.5 preferred an appeal. The Settlement Officer Consolidation vide order dated 27.7.2012 dismissed the appeal against which the revision No.319/12 -13 Ramesh Chandra Vs. Atar Singh and others was preferred under Section 48 of the U.P.Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953. The Deputy Director of Consolidation by his order dated 7.12.2013 has allowed the revision and hence this writ petition. I have heard Sri Anil Bhushan learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondent no.5.
(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner has assailed the order on the following grounds: (i) The order impugned amounts to review which power, the Deputy Director of Consolidation does not possess and therefore the order is wholly without jurisdiction. (ii) The revision was earlier allowed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation vide order dated 26.12.2012 whereby the chak allotted to Ramesh Chandra were interchanged with that of Dharmwati, respondent no.6. and the chak of the petitioner was left undisturbed. This order dated 26.12.2012 was recalled on an application filed by Dharmwati and thereafter the impugned order has been passed disturbing the chak of the petitioner. On the strength of the above, it has been submitted that since earlier order did not disturb the chak of the petitioner, the Deputy Director of Consolidation has committed manifest error in disturbing the chak of the petitioner in his subsequent order. (iii) The respondent had been allotted chak on his original holding and therefore there was no justification for disturbing the chak of the petitioner at the instance of the said respondent. ;