- (1.) G. S. N. Tripathi, J. This is a petition under Articles 226 of the Constitution seeking a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the orders dated 7. 7. 94 and 7. 9. 94 (Annexures 6 and 7 to the petition) passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Kanpur Dehat. He has further prayed for a writ or order in the nature of manadamus directing the respondents to carve out the Chak of the petitioners absolutely in accordance with appellate order dated 6. 8. 83 (Annexure 1) along with its correction slip and Form 23 issued in favour of the petitioners vide Annexure 2.
(2.) IT appears that both the lower courts acted under a misapprehension. Therefore, the correct facts were not appreciated by them. The order dated 6. 8. 83 was passed by the Settlement Officer Consolidation (S. O. C.), Kanpur in appeal No. 183, Raja Ram Chakvar No. 268 State of Uttar Pradesh filed by the petitioners. Two chaks were allotted to them as they had desired. Form 231 was accordingly issued vide Annexure 1 and 2. At a later stage, it seems that some bungling was made in the records and the consolidation scheme approved by the S. O. C. (supra) was disturbed by the Consolidator.
(3.) THE petitioners moved an application before the S. O. C. for correction of the same. THE S. O. C. sent a reference disapproving the prayer made by the petitioners. THE Dy. Director of Consolidation (D. D. C.), Kanpur Dehat rejected the same as a revision had been filed by the petitioners, which had not been mentioned therein, whereas, the petitioners have denied that they ever filed any revision. An application for review was also rejected by the learned D. D. C. on 7. 9. 94. THErefore, this petition has been filed. Once the consolidation scheme was made final by the order dated 6. 8. 83, passed by the S. O. C. , against which no appeal had been preferred, there was no question "of disturbing the chaks allotted to the petitioners. But a disturbance was made and the petitioners were constrained to move an application under Section 42-A of the Consolidation of Holdings Act. That section gives power to the Con solidation Officer or the S. O. C. to correct the clerical and arithmetic error ap parent on the face of the record, existing in any document prepared under the provisions of the Act. This way, the S. O. C or CO. himself should have corrected the arithmetical and clerical error as desired by the petitioners. There was no question of their making any reference to the D. D. C. The reference was clearly misguided and unwarranted. The result was that the D. D. C. who passed the dis puted orders on the basis of this reference, also acted without any jurisdiction. Instead of appreciating the points, the authorities below acted on a technical con siderations and carried a miscarriage of justice, as the petitioners have been disal lowed the reliefs prayed without assigning any reason for the same.;