S.K.Singh, J. - (1.) Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned Counsel who appeared for private respondents. Pleadings are complete and as prayed, matter is being heard and decided finally.
(2.) The proceedings are under section 20 of UPCH Act which relates to allotment of chak between the parties. Needless to say that both parties can never be satisfied as it is not possible to satisfy both parties in its entirety and therefore, the concern of the Court should be that whether the petitioner has suffered any prejudice calling for interference or not.
(3.) So far as case in hand is concerned, challenges is the judgment of the Deputy Director of Consolidation and the appellate authority dated 30.6.2003 and 26.8.2002 respectively. Perusal of the judgment of the appellate authority and the revisional authority indicates that in most cryptic and cursory manner, appeal of the opposite party has been allowed. On the pretext that the opposite party's plot Nos. 182 and 184 is encluded in the chak of petitioner, area from plot No. 186 which is the largest part of holding of petitioner has been taken away. Needless to say that on the largest part of holding every chak holder is entitled to get maximum area and therefore, to deprive with that allotment, strong reason will have to be given. Be as it may, there was specific ground taken by ' the petitioner in ground Nos. 8, 9 and 10 j before the Revisional Court that the chak of opposite party has already been adjusted/finalised twice in two appeals i.e. : Appeal No. 704 by judgment dated 6.3.2000 and Appeal Nos. 676-678 by judgment dated 27.2.2000 and thereafter by order of Revisional Court dated 11.10.2001 and therefore, allotment as made now by the appellate authority by judgment dated I 26.8.2002 is wrong has not been taken note of and the revision has been dismissed in cursory manner. In view of aforesaid, it is clear that neither appellate authority nor the Revisional Court has examined these aspects that whether any relief in appeal filed by opposite party inspite of two earlier appellate orders dated 6.3.2000 and 17.2.2000 and order of Revisional Court dated 11.10.2001 can be given or not. Besides aforesaid, it is also the concern of Courts that whether a party having largest part of holding is to be deprived of that area and if so what is the reason for that. On the facts perusal of both orders, clearly satisfies this Court that both orders cannot be said to be order in the eye of law inasmuch as, none of the authorities have discussed even hardship of the petitioner any impact of earlier litigation. Appeal of opposite party appears to have been allowed in a routine manner just on mere asking. Thus, the matter needs fresh attention by Revisional Court keeping in mind the observation as made in this order and the grounds so taken by the petitioner before Revisional Court.;