Sibghat Ullah Khan, J. - (1.) AT the time of arguments no -one appeared on behalf of contesting respondents, hence, only the arguments of Shri R.N. Tilhari, learned Counsel for the petitioners were heard. This writ petition arises out of consolidation proceedings pertaining to allotment of chak and is directed against judgment and order dated 13.12.1979 passed by Assistant Director Consolidation (Gonda) in revision numbered as Case No. 138, Mohd Yusuf v. Abdul Razzaak.
(2.) THROUGH the impugned order chaks of both the petitioners who are real brothers and chakdar numbers 151 and 246 were disturbed. The revision was directed against order passed by Asstt. S.O.C. Gonda camp Atraula dated 2.5.1979 in Appeal No. 623. Revision had been filed by Mohd. Yusuf chakdar No. 184. Through order passed by S.O.C. challenged in revision, Mohd. Yusuf had been granted chak in Sector No. 1, 5 and 9. His grievance was that the chak which had been granted in Sector No. 1 was not to his liking and benefit and the same was having higher valuation which resulted in reduction in area and he had not been granted of his entire holdings, hence, it shall be shifted to Sector No. 23 as was done by A.C.O. It is noted in the impugned judgment that petitioners who were opposite parties in the revision contended that their chaks had been granted on their original holdings, hence, they should not be disturbed. The revisionist Mohd. Yusuf contended that better chak had been granted to the petitioners (as noted in the impugned judgment). The revision was allowed and chaks were disturbed only on the ground that better land had been given to the petitioners by the S.O.C. This is absolutely no ground for allotment/carbation/re -carbation of the chak. Under U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act valuation is given to every plot according to its potentiality and location. If a land of good valuation is given to someone then the area is reduced and vice -versa. However, there can not be more than 25 per cent reduction in area. Accordingly, if someone is granted high valuation land then his area is reduced. It is further clear that valuation of a particular plot depending upon its quality and location can not be a ground for taking that out for someone's chak or giving it in someone's chak. The learned D.D.C. also mentioned that he was granting substantial relief to the revisionist and he could not help him further. The argument of the learned Counsel for the petitioner that this clearly meant that the learned D.D.C. wanted to help the revisionists carries lot of force. It was also wrongly mentioned by the learned D.D.C. that the change which he was everything would not adversely affect the petitioners who were respondents in the revision.
(3.) REVISION in chak matter can not be allowed just to satisfy the desire of the revisionist or anyone less. Petitioners had been granted chaks on their original holdings. Accordingly a very strong reason was required to disturb the same. Lower Revisional Court has not given any cogent reason to disturb their chaks.;