Krishna Murari, J. - (1.) Heard Sri B.L. Yadav learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri O.N. Shukla for the respondent Nos. 3 to 5.
(2.) This petition arises out of chak allotment proceedings. Against the proposed allotment of chak respondent No. 2 filed objection under section 20 of the Act which was rejected by the Consolidation Officer vide order dated 5.3.1999. The appeal filed by respondent No. 2 was also dismissed by Settlement Officer, Consolidation vide judgment and order dated 28.10.1999. Feeling aggrieved the respondent No. 2 filed a revision. The Deputy Director of Consolidation vide order dated 28.2.2001 allowed the same against which the petitioner was well as respondent No. 2 both filed with petitions before this Court which were consolidated and decided by a common judgment dated 6.5.2004. While Writ Petition No. 9296 of 2001 filed by the petitioner was dismissed, the Writ Petition No 13203 of 2001 filed by the respondent No. 2 was allowed and the case was remanded back to the Deputy Director of Consolidation. While passing the order-dated 6.5.2004 this Court made following observation; "Coming to the petition filed by Chhedi Lal, I am of the view that as Deputy Director of Consolidation has already restored a part of his original holding consisting in plot No. 1457 to Gopi situated on the main road to the extent of 1174 Aire, it calls for no interference inasmuch as it was done strictly in accordance with law and upon regard being had to the guidelines aforstated and by this reckoning, the order does not suffer from any error of law. In so far connected writ petition filed by Gopi is concerned since Deputy Director for Consolidation has not applied its mind to the aspect as to why the area to the extent demanded by the petitioner Gopi in his original holdings consisting in plot No. 1457 cannot be allotted to Gopi vis-vis the fact that according to the materials on record, the aforesaid plot does not belong to Chhedi Lal and there is nothing like original holding of Chhedi Lal in the aforestated plot or in any plot adjoining the said plot. To cap it all, the impugned order falls short of reasons why on the aforesaid plot which is the original holding of Gopi cannot be allotted to the extent demanded by the petitioner, Gopi. In the absence of a reason, it is difficult to review the order judicially under Article 226/227 of the Constitution in correct perspective. In the facts and circumstances, the petition filed by Gopi is apt to be allowed while the petition filed by Chhedi Lal is liable to be dismissed. As a result of the foregoing discussions the petition filed by Chhedi Lal is dismissed while the petition filed by Gopi, petitioner is allowed and in the consequence the impugned order is quashed in so far as it mainatians allotment made to Chhedi Lal out of original holding of petitioner Gopi in plot No. 1457 and the matter is relegated to the Deputy Director of Consolidation for decision afresh considering the guidelines dated 26.5.1980 and also taking into account of the provisions of section 19 (1) (2) (f) and (g) of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act."
(3.) After remand made by this Court the matter was again heard by the Deputy Director of Consolidation and the order dated 29.7.2004 was passed which has been impugned in the present case.;