- (1.) S. K. Singh, J. Heard Sri Rai learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri C. K. Rai, learned Advocate in opposite thereof.
(2.) CHALLENGE in this petition is the judgments of Deputy Director of Consolidation dated 7-7-1999 and 31- 10-1998 and that of Settlement Officer Consolidation dated 19-1-1996. Proceedings are under Section 20 of the U. P. C. H. Act, which is in respect to allotment of plots in the chak of the parties. Needless to say in these proceedings both the parties can never be satisfied as it is not possible for the authority to accept claim of the parties in its entirety. There is no dispute about certain facts and therefore, by mentioning brief detail the matter can be conveniently disposed of.
(3.) PLOT No. 65 happens to be original holding of the petitioners as everybody have 1/6th share in that plot and although they were allotted allotted separate chaks in respect to the land of their share as shown in CH Form No. 23 but for the purpose of convenience they applied before the Consolidation Officer and as noted in CH Form 23 by order of the Consolidation Officer dated 13-3-1995 which was passed in Case No. 6252, all the six chaks of the petitioners were kept joint and thus allotment of chak of all the petitioners remained on plot No. 65. It appears that order of the Consolidation Officer dated 13- 3-1995 was not challenged but at the same time several chak holders including the respondents in respect to their grievance filed several appeals before the appellate authority who in its turn by its judgment dated 19-1-1996 while allowing appeal made necessary changes in the chaks of the petitioners also. Against the judgment of the appellate authority revision was filed by the petitioners which was dismissed by judgment dated 31-10-1998 and thereafter restoration application filed by them was allowed but on filing restoration application by the respondents that was also allowed and as a result thereof order of the Deputy Director of Consolidation dated 31-10-1998 stood restored. It is thus petitioners are before this Court. Submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioners is that there was single plot in which all the six chak holders were adjusted keeping in mind their private source of irrigation which situates in that very plot and Abadi etc. but the appellate authority without considering all the aforesaid aspect has illegally disturbed petitioners and allotted a second chak of bad quality of land. Submission is that Deputy Director of Consolidation although have noticed submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioners about propriety of continuance of the petitioners chak on plot No. 65 for the reasons of there being pumping set and abadi etc. but without recording any findings on the score has illegally dismissed revision. Submission is that on the facts some more details in respect to the petitioners grievance and hardship was expected to be considered from the Revisional Court and if so necessary the equity should have been balanced after making spot inspection and as it has not been done Deputy Director of Consolidation is to be asked to do the needful.;