- (1.) G. S. N. Tripathi, J. This is a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a writ or order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated 21-1-89 passed by the Dy. Director of Consolidation (D. D. C.), respondent No. 1 (Annexure 6 to the petition ). Further there is a prayer that a direction may be issued in the nature of a mandamus to the respondents to proceed in accordance with law.
(2.) IN this case, the consolidation proceedings are over. One Brij Raj Singh, respondent No. 4 gave an application dated 15-7- 88 (Annexure 1 to the petition) to the D. D. C. alleging that Gata No. 2673 was his original holding. By the order dated 21-5-83 passed by the D. D. C. on the application of one Pakhandi, Chak No. 468 was allotted to the applicant Brij Raj Singh. That was a rectangular Chak. But due to the bungling committed in the office by the Draftsman or the Consolidation Lekhpal, who demanded illegal gratification from him, which the applicant could not provide, the picture of the chak of the petitioners was changed and Chak No. 297 of Pakhandi was shown inside the chak of the applicant. The applicant was kept in dark. Therefore, he prayed that the map and the Chak should be corrected in accordance with the earlier orders of the Consolidation Officer. A report was called for from the Consoldiation Officer, who submitted his report dated 17-8-88 (Annexure 2 to the petition ). Prima facie, he found that a bungling had been done in the preparation of the map and record. He recommended for correction. Chandrama Prasad, the petitioner No. 1, who is the son of Chithi'u filed an application by way of objection (Annexure 3 to the petition) before the D. D. C. on 28-9-88, that no bungling had been done at his behest. In fact, the entries in the papers and the map were in pursuance of judicial orders passed in favour of Chithru. The proper enquiries had not been made by the Consolidation Officer. Again on 10- 10-88, Chandrama Prasad gave another application (Annexure 4 to the petition) to the D. D. C. that the records were available and they could be perused. But in fact, no such records were made available. Thus after hearing the parties, the learned D. D. C. upheld the conclusion drawn by the Consolidation Officer and ordered for correction of the record.
(3.) FEELING aggrieved by this order,' the petitioners have come to this Court. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record. I find that there is some substance in this petition and it deserves to be allowed to that extent.;