A. Banerji, J. - (1.) 264 petitioners filed this joint petition against an order of respondent no. 1, Deputy Director of Consolidation, Ballia, dated 25th October, 1975, dismissing two revisions under Sec. 48 of the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). These revisions were filed against the order of respondent no. 2, Settlement Officer (Consolidation) dated 5th July, 1975 allowing 71 appeals in part and setting aside the provisional consolidation scheme of the entire village and directing preparation of the same afresh after giving an opportunity to all such persons who had any objection to the valuation of the Chaks. The Settlement Officer (Consolidation) held that the Assistant Consolidation Officer had completely ignored the provisions of the law and the Rules in preparing the provisional consolidation scheme, which was full of illegalities and irregularities and called for whole-sale setting aside of the same.
(2.) THESE 264 petitioners filed this Petition mainly on the ground that the Deputy Director of Consolidation had passed the order dated 25th October, 1975 violating the principles of natural justice, inasmuch as the order was passed without hearing the petitionres. Their case was that the provisional consolidation scheme was prepared properly and in accordance with law. The said scheme could not be set aside completely by either the Settlement Officer (Consolidation) or the Deputy Director of Consolidation in exercise of their appellate and revisional jurisdiction and that these two authorities had shirked their duties in not deciding the .appeals and the revisions on the merits making necessary modifications wherever necessary. In other words, the contention was that the entire consolidation scheme could not be set at nought by these two authorities and that they had acted without jurisdiction in doing so. On behalf of the contesting respondents it was pointed out that the orders passed by the Settlement Officer (Consolidation and the Deputy Director of Consolidation were speaking orders and gave sufficient reasons for the setting aside of the provisional consolidation scheme. The observations made by these two consolidation authorities in their orders showed that the provisional consolidation scheme was prepared without complying with the provisions of the law and the Rules or the guidelines in the Consolidation Manual. Valuations of Chaks were made arbitrarily. Without having regard to the accepted position, change of sectors was made capriciously and Bachat land for the Gaon Sabha was left at 36 places in the village, which was wholly prohibited. Learned counsel for the contesting respondents urged that the consolidation authorities had ample power under the law to order the cancellation of the provisional consolidation scheme and to order for the preparation of a fresh one in accordance with law. The Settlement Officer (Consolidation) had acted within his jurisdiction in the -present case in doing so. The Deputy Director of Consolidation could also exercise powers under Sec. 21 (4) of the Act while hearing and deciding a revision under Sec. 48 of the Act. Learned counsel further contended that it was not necessary in the circumstances of the present case to have given a hearing to each and every tenure-holder in the village. The interest of all the tenure holders was protected by setting aside the provisional consolidation scheme. Learned counsel for the contesting respondents raised a preliminary objection to the maintainability of the writ petition, as 17 of the petitioners had died during the pendency of the writ petition in this Court, and no steps had been taken by the petitioners to bring the heirs of the deceased petitioners on the record. Mr. S. N. Singh holding the brief of Mr. R. N. Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners admitted the factum of the death of 17 petitioners viz. Dasrath-43, Lakhuman-48, Harisaran-60, Vilar-97, Musafir-112, Shrikishun-114, Ramvruksh-115, Sital-136, Rangeeram-146, Shivmuni-153, Harihar-162, Nageena Shukla-178, Babu Nandan Rai-180, Sunder Rai-181, Mijari Kunwari-183, Baliram Chubey-187 and Bhola-220. He also admitted that no steps had been taken for bringing their heirs on the record. He, however, made the following statement :- "The names of 17 dead petitioners may be deleted from the array of petitioners and the writ petition be treated as if the 17 petitioners are not parties to it and consequently it is not necessary to bring their heirs on the record."
(3.) IT is evident that due to non- impleadment of the heirs of the deceased petitioners, the Petition on their behalf cannot proceed and the orders of the Respondents 1 and 2 have become final as against them. The effect would be that as against 17 deceased petitioners and their heirs the impugned orders would stand. The statement made at the Bar is an effort to get over this situation and to put forward the case on behalf of the rest of the Petitioners, as if the 17 deceased petitioners were no parties to this petition. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the opinion that even allowing the oral prayer would make no difference to the final outcome in this case. The oral prayer is accordingly allowed. The Writ Petition is now considered on the merits, as it involves the interests of all the tenure-holders in the concerned village. Section 19-A of the Act requires the Assistant Consolidation Officer to prepare in the prescribed form a provisioual consolidation scheme for the unit. Rule 46 of the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Rules, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as the Rubs) requires the Assistant Consolidation Officer to prepare a provisional consolidation scheme in C. H. Form 23 in consultation with the members of the Consolidation Committee after making enquiries from as many tenure holders as possible. The consolidation scheme so prepared is to be accompanied by a copy of the map of the unit showing the plots allotted to tenure-holders and the location of land set apart for public purpose. The Assistant Consolidation Officer has to follow the guidelines as contained in Rules 47 to 49. Any objection to the provisional consolidation scheme received by the Assistant Consolidation Officer have to be forwarded to the Consolidation Officer with a common village file. The Consolidation Officer is required to inspect the plots, after notice to concerned parties before he rejects the objection. He is required to serve a notice o;