S.R.Misra - (1.) RAM Prasad, petitioner challenges the order, dated 18th April 1984, passed by Deputy Director of Consolidation by means of the present writ petition.
(2.) THE facts of the case, as stated in the writ petition, in brief are that in proceedings before the Consolidation Authorities, an objection was filed by the petitioner in respect of plot no. 986 situate in the village Sisarshepah, Post Office Nasratpur, Pargana Sikandra, District Allahabad claiming that plot no. 986/1, area 2 Biswa 10 Dhoor belongs to him and, therefore, the aforesaid area be demarcated. THE petitioner further asserted that the area allotted to him was less than actual area. Bankey Lal, respondent no. 1 amalgamated 2 Biswa 10 Dhoor land, which was a chak land, in his chak and, therefore, this area should be excluded from the Chak of Bankey Lal. Consolidation Officer's report dated 31-12-1970, together with other reports, were considered by Dy. Director 6f Consolidation who decided the case against the petitioner. Therefore, petitioner filed Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 2551 of 1974 before this Honourable Court. A perusal of the order passed by this Court dated 18-5-1981 reads as under : "Yadi rakwe ka ghatana barana kal banshit tha so bipakshi ka rakwa 14 Biswa 3 biswhnsi se bara kar 18 Biswa 10 biswansi rakwa nahi kiya ja sakta. Parantu main is bisay par apna koi bhi nirnaya nahi dena cbahata Up sanchalak chakbandi ko yeh chaheya ki jo rakwa chak ke bahar tha, usko chakbandi ke bahar rakhte huye uski bahbandi athava hakbandi karwa den. Uske bisaya me yadi kol swatwa (title) ka bibad....." It makes it clear that there was clear direction to the Deputy Director of Consolidation that the area of 2 Biswa 10 Dhoor which was out of the purview of the consolidation proceedings that should be demarcated and if any dispute in respect of title of that area arises he will decide the same. It war found as a fact and has been reported by the Consolidation Officer that both the petitioner and respondents were entitled to 14 Biswa 3 Biswansi but the area of the contesting respondent was 18 Biswa 10 Biswansi. The Deputy Director of Consolidation on remand instead of complying with the order for demarcating that area for which petitioner states that there are materials on the record before the Consolidation Authorities that this area of 2 Biswa 10 Dhoor was kept out of the consolidation and this belongs to the petitioner and no objection was filed by any party, after the receipt of the report, the Deputy Director of Consolidation sent the case back to the Consolidation Officer with the direction that without making any change in the chak of Bankey Lal 2 Biswa 10 Dhoor of land be given to the petitioner from Bachat land.
(3.) AGGRIEVED by the order of the Deputy Director of Consolidation Sri Radhey Shyam, learned counsel for the petitioner assailed the impugned order on the ground that in plot no. 986/1 originally belongs to the petitioner prior to the consolidation operation on account of the fact that there are certain constructions of minor nature and a number of trees which were planted by the petitioner's father, this area was excluded from the consolidation operation as Achak land, and, after the decision by this Court the Deputy Director of Consolidation should have demarcated this area on the spot. He next pointed out that when the direction of this Court was to allot 2 Biswa, 10 Dhoor area to the petitioner as the same is Achak land from Bachat land, the grievance of the petitioner having been satisfied, petitioner has no concern nor he could make a claim that since the area of Bankey Lal is more than due to him, he should be allotted from his chak is erroneous and since it is an equitable order no interference is called for. Having heard the counsel for the parties and having perused the record of the case as well as the judgment of this Court, I am of the view that the Deputy Director of Consolidation has completely ignored the directions contained in the judgment dated 18-5-1981 (a portion of which has already been quoted above). A perusal of the order of the Deputy Director of Consolidation shows that he has passed the order without application of mind. Deputy Director of Consolidation is the highest authority in the hierarchy in deciding rights and interest of the parties under the provisions of the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act. His judgment passed under Section 48 of the Act is expected to be covered by legal as well as the equitable aspect of the matter and his findings recorded are treated to be findings of fact, and, are final. Normally, even this Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India does not interfere with these findings of fact, if those are based after the appreciation of material evidence on the record. But, in the instant case Deputy Director of Consolidation has not complied with the direction of this Court and has passed impugned order in a very cursory manner so as to ignore the very direction in the order of remand.;