K.N. Misra, J. - (1.) THIS writ petition is directed against the judgment and order dated 14.07.1978 passed by the Regional Deputy Director of Consolidation, Gonda in Camp at Bahraich by which he has made alterations in the chalks of opposite parties No. 2 and 3 and also of other tenure holders who have not been arrayed as opposite parties in the present writ petition although their chalks have been altered by the impugned order as is evident from the chart appended to the impugned order dated 14.07.1978 passed by opposite party No. 1. briefly stated, the facts of the present case, are as follows : Petitioner Kasim is chak holder No. 58. Against the proposed allotment of chalks the Petitioner and preferred objection Under Section 20 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act (for short the Act). The petitioner had challenged the proposed allotment of chalks on various grounds. The Consolidation Officer after hearing the parties dismissed the objection of the Petitioner order dated 18.06.1975. Aggrieved by it the Petitioner had preferred appeal which was allowed by the Settlement Officer, Consolidation vide judgment and order dated 2K.2.1976. The Petitioner's chak was altered and as against his original holding of 2 170 acres the Petitioner was allotted by the Settlement Officer, Consolidation a chak measuring 2.32fc acres. Adjustment in the chalk of the Petitioner was made with the chalks of hagru and others. Feeling aggrieved by it, Jargon and Ors. Tenure holders preferred revisions Under Section 48 of the Act. These revisions were heard together and disposed of by common judgment and order dated 14.07.1978 (Annexure No. 3). The learned Regional Deputy Director of Consolidation, Gonda camp at Bahraich, exercising the peers of Director of Consolidation Under Section 48 of the Act, passed the said order making adjustment and allotment of chalks to various tenure holders and the chalk of the Petitioner was also altered. Adjustment in his chalk was made with the chalk of opposite party No. 2 Ibrahim and with the chalk of Inaoiatuilah (back holder No. 371 Alternation and adjustment in the chalk of Ina.nutuilah I as been made with the chalk of the Petitioner and also with the chalk of Ishwardin (chalk holder No. 44). The adjustment chart indicates that cross -adjustments very made in the chalk of the Petitioner and opposite parties No. 2 and 3 and also in the chalks of other tenure holders, namely, inamatullah, imt. Kalawati, Ishwardin, Ambika, Mohd Yasim, Yunus, Radhika and Batula Bibi. These tenure holders have not been impleaded in the present writ petition. Since their chalks were also altered by the impugned order, and, as such, they were necessary parties, the writ petition is, therefore, incompetent as no order can be passed adversely affecting them.
(2.) LEARNED Counsel for the Petitioner Dr. L.P. Misra urged that the impugned order deserves to be quashed so far as allotment of chalk to the Petitioner is concerned, which according to him, stands vitiated being vocative of proviso to Sub -section (1)(b) of Section 19 of the Act, as the Petitioner has been allotted a chalk by opposite party No. 1 with a difference of more than 25 per cent in the allotted land with that of his original holding. Learned Counsel pointed out that the original area of the Petitioner's original holding was 2 170 acres, but he has now been allotted by the Regional Deputy Director of Consolidation land in his chalk measuring 1.374 acres He, thus, contended that there is a difference of more than 25 per cent in the allotted area with that of his original holding, which could not be done without the permission of the Director of Consolidation as has been provided in the proviso to Section 19(1)(b) of the Act. Learned Counsel contended that no permission was obtained of the Director of Consolidation by the Regional Deputy Director of Consolidation while making the aforesaid allotment of chalks by the impugned order. Learned Counsel, thus, contended that the impugned order deserves to be quashed. I have carefully considered the aforesaid argument and have perused the impugned order passed by the Regional Deputy Director of Consolidation and in my opinion there is no merit in the aforesaid contention. Having perused the impugned order very carefully I find that the Regional Deputy Director of Consolidation found that proper allotment of chalks was not made to the revisionists by the Settlement Officer, Consolidation. He has given good reasons for making alteration in the chalks of the parties. Learned Regional Deputy Director of Consolidation had thus, proceeded to make appropriate allotment of chalks to the parties and in the process of making adjustment in the chalks of the parties, the chalk of the Petitioner was also altered and the area of his chalk was reduced. The decrease in the area of the chalk of the Petitioner by more than 25 per cent has resulted apparently on the ground that the Petitioner has been allotted good quality land of higher exchange ratio than of his original plots. Since the area of the chalk of the Petitioner has been reduced by more than 25 per cent by the impugned order passed by the Regional Deputy Director of Consolidation, who exercises powers of the Director of Consolidation, and, as such, I do not find that the allotment of chalk to the Petitioner would stand vitiated on the said ground urged by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner. The learned Regional Deputy Director of Consolidation has passed the order in exercise of powers of Director of Consolidation Under Section 48 of the Act, and, as such, no permission was required to be obtained by him for making allotment of chalks with a difference of more than 25 per cent in area to the original holding of the Petitioner. The said provision can also be not so construed that a separate order granting permission to make such alteration in the chalk of the Petitioner was required to be passed by the Regional Deputy Director of Consolidation. In my opinion, the required permission contemplated in the said proviso would be deemed to have been accorded by him and it would be inherently manifest in the order of allotment passed by the Regional Deputy Director of Consolidation. Thus, in my opinion, the impugned order cannot be said to be vitiated being vocative to the provision contained in the proviso to Section 19(1)(b) of the Act. Learned Regional Deputy Director of Consolidation has made appropriate adjustment in the chalks of the parties after giving them full opportunity of hearing and after perusing the relevant record. The impugned order appears to be quite just and proper.
(3.) NO other point was pressed.;