Krishna Murari, J. - (1.) Heard Sri Sankatha Rai, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Faujdar Rai, learned counsel for the contesting respondents.
(2.) The dispute relates to plot No. 495 which is alleged by the petitioners to be their original holding. It has been stated in the writ petition that originally the said plot was kept chak out and was not valued. At a later stage contesting respondent No. 4 in collusion with the consolidation authorities got it valued without any notice or knowledge to the petitioners. After being valued when the said plot was included in the chak of respondent No. 4 an objection was filed by the petitioners which was rejected by the Consolidation Officer. Aggrieved the petitioners filed an appeal which was dismissed by the Settlement Officer Consolidation on 15.1.1983. Revisions filed by the petitioners was also dismissed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation on 23.3.1986. The Settlement Officer Consolidation and Deputy Director of Consolidation, both, held that relief claimed by the petitioners regarding valuation and to keep the disputed plot chak out cannot be granted at the stage of chak allotment proceedings. A perusal of the objection filed by the petitioners as Annexure-1 to the writ petition also goes to show that only relief claimed was to set aside the valuation of the plot and to keep it chak out. The allegations made by the petitioners in the writ petition that initially the plot in dispute was made chak out and was valued subsequently behind their back, have been denied by the respondents in the counter affidavit. In paragraph 6 of the counter affidavit it has categorically been stated that petitioners had filed objection challenging the valuation which was dismissed by the Consolidation Officer on 29.12.1981. Copy of the said order has been filed as Annexure-CA-1. It has further been stated that the said order was not challenged and became final. These facts have not been denied by the petitioners in the rejoinder affidavit. Sri Sankatha Rai, learned counsel for the petitioners has urged that though in the objection dated 22.2.1982 the petitioners did not claim allotment of the disputed plot in their chak but relief was claimed in appeal before the Settlement Officer Consolidation and the same was also pressed during the course of arguments which has also been noted by the Settlement Officer Consolidation in his judgment. This relief was also claimed and pressed in revision before the Deputy Director of Consolidation, but both the authorities have wrongly and illegally not considered the same.
(3.) In reply it has been urged by learned counsel appearing for the respondents that the petitioners have deliberately concealed the fact of rejection of their objection, challenging the valuation, vide order dated 29.12.1981 with a view to mislead this Court and hence are not entitled to any relief and the writ petition is liable to be dismissed on this ground alone. It has further been urged that petitioners never filed any objection claiming allotment of the disputed plot in their chak and this relief was claimed for the first time in revision before the Deputy Director of Consolidation.;