Janardan Sahai, J. - (1.) The petitioner Punna and respondent No. 2 Galta are brothers and co-tenants. Objections under section 2D of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act were filed by the petitioner. The Consolidation Officer rejected the objections. The Consolidation Officer has recorded a finding that the petitioner had been allotted both the chaks on his original number 2302. The petitioner preferred an appeal. His case was that plot No. 2302 allotted to him was inferior quality land and was wrongly valued. His demand was that either the petitioner and respondent Galta be both given the plot equally or the petitioner be compensated by giving additional area. In the appeal a compromise is said to have been arrived at. The Settlement Officer, Consolidation allowed the appeal and modified the chak of the petitioner and that of respondent No. 2 Galta. The Settlement Officer, Consolidation also changed the valuation of the portion of plot No. 2302 from 80-P to 60-P and consequently an area 4-0-0 was reduced from the chak of respondent No. 2 and given in the petitioner's chak. Against that order a revision was filed by respondent No. 2 Galta. The Deputy Director of Consolidation found that the compromise was invalid and also held that the objections regarding the valuation could not have been filed under section 20 of the Act but under section 9 of the Act and consequently he directed that the. valuation of plot No. 2302/2 and 3192 be changed from 60 Paise to 80 Paise. The revision was thus finally disposed of.
(2.) I have heard Sri G.N. Verma learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri Raj Kishore Yadav Counsel for respondent No. 2 and Sri S.K. Yadav holding brief for Sri Anuj Kumar Counsel for respondent No. 3. Sri R.K. Yadav Counsel respondent No. 2 stated that he does not propose to file any counter-affidavit.
(3.) It was submitted by Sri G.N. Verma that after having held that the compromise was invalid and having increased the valuation of plot No. 2302/2 and 3192 to 80 Paise, the Deputy Director of Consolidation ought to have sent the matter to the Settlement Officer, Consolidation for deciding the chak appeal on merits. The position that the chak allotment appeal requires to be heard on merits afresh in view of the finding of the Deputy Director of Consolidation about the compromise is not disputed by the Counsel for respondent No. 2. Indeed as the compromise is to be ignored the chak appeal has to be heard. The Deputy Director of Consolidation cannot without recording reasons change the allotment and the order of the Deputy Director of Consolidation in respect of any such modification in the chak cannot be sustained. This order dated 3.10.2006 is therefore modified and the Settlement Officer Consolidation is directed to decide the chak appeal afresh on merits. To this extent the petition is allowed. Petition Allowed.;