- (1.) KRISHNA Murari, J. Heard Sri Vinod Kumar Rai holding brief of Sri Sankatha Rai, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri S. C. Varma appearing for the contesting respondent No. 4.
(2.) THIS petition arises out of chak allotment proceedings. The facts are that the petitioner who is chak holder No. 355, has largest part of original holdings on plot Nos. 24 and 32. At the stage of Assistant Consolidation Officer the petitioner was proposed two chaks which included his original holdings. Various objections were filed by the tenure-holders against the proposed allotment. The Consolidation Officer consolidated the said objections and decided them by a common order dated 24-3-1986 by which the chak of the petitioner was disturbed. Aggrieved, he filed an appeal which was allowed by the Assistant Settlement Officer, Consolidation on 5-7-1986. The appellate order became final as it was not challenged by the respondent No. 3. However, in an another Case No. 151 the chak of respondent No. 3 was disturbed by the Consolidation Officer against which he preferred an appeal which was numbered as Appeal No. 894. The Settlement Officer, Consolidation vide order dated 5-7-1986 dismissed the same. The petitioner was not impleaded as a party in the said appeal. The respondent No. 3 challenged the appellate order dated 5-7-1986 in revision in which the petitioner was impleaded as respondent. The claim of the respondent No. 3 was that he should be allotted chak on his original plot No. 24 near his pumping set. The Deputy Director of Consolidation vide order dated 27-1-1987 dismissed the same. THIS order also became final as it was not challenged by anybody. Another time barred appeal was filed by the respondent No. 6 against the order of Consolidation Officer dated 24-3-1986 claiming that his chak may be restored at the stage of Assistant Consolidation Officer. The Settlement Officer, Consolidation vide order dated 27-4-1989 allowed the said appeal and made certain adjustment in the chak of respondent Nos. 3 and 6. However, chak of the petitioner was not affected. Respondent Nos. 3 and 6 both filed revision against appellate order dated 27-4-1989. The Deputy Director of Consolidation vide impugned order dated 13-6-1989 allowed both the revisions and disturbed the chak of the petitioner and allotted a completely Udan chak. It has been urged by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that Deputy Director of Consolidation has wrongly and illegally deprived the petitioner of his original holding without considering the facts that allotment of chak in his favour had already became final by the earlier judgment of Deputy Director of Consolidation. It has further been urged that Deputy Director of Consolidation has failed to record any reason for disturbing the chak of the petitioner and depriving him of his original holdings. In reply, learned Counsel for the respondent has tried to justify the impugned order. I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record.
(3.) THE impugned judgment of Deputy Director of Consolidation is a cryptic judgment which neither contains any reason nor there is any appreciation of the rival claim of the parties. THEre is no dispute about the fact that the petitioner has been deprived of his original holdings, though the chak allotment in his favour was confirmed by the judgment dated 27-1-1987 of Deputy Director of Consolidation himself though in different revision. No reason at all has been recorded by the Deputy Director of Consolidation for disturbing the chak of the petitioner and depriving him of his original holdings nor there is any reason for disturbing his chak though the same became final by the judgment dated 27-1- 1987. THE Deputy Director of Consolidation is under obligation to assign the reason after appreciation of rival claim of the parties to justify the conclusion arrived by him. The impugned judgment of Deputy Director of Consolidation being devoid of any reason cannot be sustained and is hereby quashed. The writ petition stands allowed. The matter is relegated back to the Deputy Director of Consolidation to decide the case afresh in accordance with law and in the light of observations made herein above, after notice and opportunity of hearing to the parties, preferably within a period of six months from the date of production of certified copy of this order before him.;