S.K.Singh, J. - (1.) Challenge in the petition is the judgment of the Deputy Director of Consolidation dated 30.3.2001 by which revision filed by the opposite party has been allowed. Proceedings are under section 20 of the U.P.C.H. Act which is in respect to allotment of chak. For disposal of the matter the facts in brief will suffice.
(2.) All the parties are co-sharer. Settlement Officer Consolidation dismissed the appeal filed by the opposite party by recording finding that chak of the appellants is in front of his house which is in eastern side and thereafter road is situated. In view of the aforesaid on the finding of the appellate authority the chak of the appellant was just and proper as it was in front of his house and also near the road. Deputy Director of Consolidation by assigning reason that chak of the appellant/revisionist has been slightly displaced by judgment of the Consolidation Officer has made necessary changes.
(3.) After hearing Counsel for the parties, it is clear that the Deputy Director of Consolidation has not made any spot inspection, as it is not mentioned in his judgment. The judgment of the Settlement Officer, Consolidation clearly mentions that he has made spot inspection. In view of the aforesaid to adjust the equity between the parties on the spot it was obligatory on the part of the revisional Court to have made spot inspection. Adjustment as being claimed by the parties could have been properly made after making spot inspection.;