- (1.) Heard Shri Namwar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner. Although the matter was taken up in the revised list, none has appeared for the contesting respondents.
(2.) The writ petition arises out of proceedings for allotment of chaks and is directed against the order passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation on 17.02.1989 whereby the revisions filed by the contesting respondents have been allowed, modifying the chaks of the petitioner. The petitioner no. 1 is holder of chak no. 343, the petitioner no. 2 is holder of chak no. 344, respondent no. 2 is holder of chak no. 52 while the respondent no. 3 is holder of chak no. 543. It appears that the Consolidation Officer, by his order dated 30.04.1982, modified the chaks of the parties. The petitioner no. 1 filed an appeal which was allowed by the order dated 23.03.1987. Against the appellate order, separate revisions were filed by the respondent nos. 2 and 3. These revisions were connected and decided by a common order modifying the chaks of the petitioner. Hence this writ petition. It has been contended that the parties belong to the same family and were joint tenure holders on the start of the consolidation operations. However separate chaks have been carved out in their names. The petitioners are primarily aggrieved on account of being shifted from plot no. 215 which was the original holding of the parties.
(3.) The contention of the respondent in the revision was that he had been allotted three chaks, although he is a small tenure holder. The third chak allotted on plot nos. 609 and 610, was an udan chak and, therefore, it was prayed in the revision that the udan chak be abolished and only two chaks be proposed to them. This relief has been granted by the Deputy Director of Consolidation and in the process the petitioners have been allotted a third chak on plot nos. 609 and 610 on the reasoning that they were possessed of original holdings in the vicinity. The contention, therefore, is that since the parties were joint tenure holders, their original holdings were the same plots and, therefore, the Deputy Director of Consolidation has adopted double standards. The petitioners are similarly aggrieved as the respondent was, prior to the passing of the impugned order. Even the petitioners are small tenure holders who had been proposed two chaks, but by the order impugned they have now been allotted three chaks, the third being an udan chak. It is also submitted that the plot nos. 609 and 610 that have been proposed to the petitioners are inferior quality land. Further, reliance has been placed on the averment contained in paragraph 17 of the writ petition, wherein a categorical statement has been made that the observation of the Deputy Director of Consolidation that the petitioners were possessed of land in the vicinity of plot nos. 609 and 610 is factually incorrect. None has appeared for the respondents. It is also relevant to note that no counter affidavit to the writ petition is available on record and, therefore, the averments contained in paragraph 17 of the writ petition referred to above, stand unrebutted and, therefore, have to be accepted. Consideration of the submissions made and a perusal of the record reveals that by the impugned order passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation, the position of the third chak of the respondent and the petitioner, stands interchanged. Although the Deputy Director of Consolidation has passed the impugned order for remedying the illegality of an udan chak having been allotted to the contesting respondents, the petitioners have been put in the same position as the respondents were prior to this order being passed even though the parties were co-tenure holders on this start of the consolidation operations and, therefore, possessed of identical original holdings.;