Ram Surat Ram (Maurya), J. - (1.) HEARD Sri S.K. Srivastav along with Sri Jagdish Prasad Mishra, for the petitioner and Sri Arjun Singhal, for respondents -2. The writ petition has been filed for quashing the orders of Deputy Director of Consolidation, dated 20.9.2014 and 27.5.2015, passed in chak allotment proceeding under U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as the Act).
(2.) PLOT 189 -m (area 0.1071 hectare) of village Khindariya, pargana Purchhapar, district Muzaffarnagar along with other plots were original holdings of the petitioner. Assistant Consolidation Officer allotted a single chak to the petitioner (chak -215) on plots 188, 189, 192 and 194 of an area of 0.5324 hectare. Plot 189 -m (area 0.3693 hectare) was also original holding of Likhey Ram (chak -418). He was also allotted a single chak on plots 189, 190, 191, 192, 193 and 194 of an area of 0.3438 hectare. The petitioner filed an objection (registered as Case No. 1) under section 21 of the Act. The Consolidation Officer by order dated 22.3.2013, allowed the objection and modified the chak of the petitioner, in which chak of Likhey Ram has also been modified. Likhey Ram filed an appeal (registered as Appeal No. 385) against aforesaid order; stating therein that the petitioner, in his objection demanded for allotment of chak on plot 263, of the valuation of his plot 175 (area 1 -0 -0 bigha), which was purchased by him but the Consolidation Officer has illegally allotted chak to him on plot 189 etc. Due to which his chak has become in the shape of long strip. Settlement Officer Consolidation, by order dated 14.8.2013 found that major part of original holdings of Likhey Ram was in northern side of plot 189 and he was rightly allotted chak in northern side, taking major portion of his original holdings. On these findings he dismissed appeal of Likhey Ram. Likhey Ram filed a revision (registered as Revision No. 198) against aforesaid order. The revision was heard by Deputy Director of Consolidation on 25.8.2014, who also made spot inspection on 3.9.2014 and by order dated 20.9.2014 allowed the revision and restored the chaks of the parties of the stage of Assistant Consolidation Officer. The petitioner filed an application for recall of the order dated 20.9.2014 on the ground that order has been passed without spot inspection and without hearing the arguments. Additional Collector by order dated 27.5.2015 found that arguments of both the parties were heard on 25.8.2014 and 3.9.2014 was fixed for spot inspection and 20.9.2014 for delivery of order. Spot inspection was conducted in presence of the parties. Likhey Ram was allotted some portion of plots 191, 192, 193 and 194, due to which no prejudice has been caused to the petitioner. The order has been passed on merit after hearing the arguments of the parties and after spot inspection and it was not liable to be recalled. On these findings recall application was rejected. Hence this writ petition has been filed.
(3.) THE Counsel for the petitioner submitted that Deputy Director of Consolidation passed the order dated 20.9.2014, without application of mind. He has not assigned any reason for interfering, with the orders of subordinate authorities nor pointed out any illegality in it, for exercising his revisional jurisdiction. The petitioner took the plea that he had planted popular tree on his original holdings, which is standing on the spot, but Deputy Director of Consolidation did not advert to the aforesaid argument. Deputy Director of Consolidation did not prepare spot inspection memo nor heard arguments after spot inspection and allowed the revision without recording any findings or assigning any reason for interference. This Court in Ramdeo v. D.D.C. and others : 1980 RD 324, held that Deputy Director of Consolidation was required to hear arguments afresh, after spot inspection. Direction of the chak has been changed by subordinate authority at their own level without there being any specification by Deputy Director of Consolidation in this respect. The order of Deputy Director of Consolidation was arbitrary and ex parte but the recall application of the petitioner has been rejected. The orders of Deputy Director of Consolidation are illegal and liable to be set aside.;