S.K.Singh, J. - (1.) As pleadings are complete, learned Counsel for the parties insisted for hearing on the merits and therefore, the matter is being heard and finally decided.
(2.) Challenge in this petition is the judgment of the Deputy Director of Consolidation dated 22.1.1993 by which revision filed by the respondent No. 3 has been allowed. Proceedings are under section 20 of the U.P.C.H. Act, which is in respect to adjustment of plot in the chak of the parties. Needless to say in the allotment of chak proceedings both the parties can never be satisfied as it is not possible for the Court to accept the claim of both parties in its entirety. Be as it may, so far case in hand is concerned it appears that against the order of the Consolidation Officer respondent No. 3 filed appeal before the appellate authority. Perusal of the judgment of the appellate authority indicates that in view of the consent of the parties certain adjustment was made by which respondent No. 3 was placed on plot No. 397 etc. which is original holding. In-spite of order of the Settlement Officer, Consolidation which appears to be based on the consent, opposite party filed revision and that has been allowed by the impugned judgment. A perusal of the impugned judgment clearly indicates that in first paragraph of the judgment claim of the respondent No. 3 has been mentioned in one line i.e. revisionist wants entire chak over plot No. 14. In the next paragraph of the judgment it is mentioned that he has heard parties, perused the record and keeping in mind claim of the revisionist, his claim is being allowed and he is being given entire chak of plot No. 14.
(3.) Judgment of the Deputy Director I of Consolidation on the ground as indicated above, cannot be said to be a sound exercise as it is not to be repeated that the claim of a party is not to be allowed on just mere asking unless there is comparative analysis in respect to the claim of both parties and inconvenience/hardship which may occasion to the other side. It appears that the Deputy Director of Consolidation just on mere asking of the revisionist without giving any reason or justification to I accept the claim of revisionist and without considering inconvenience if any which may occasion to the respondents, has allowed the revision.;