Janardan Sahai, J. - (1.) The dispute relates to allotment of chak. The petitioner was proposed allotment of five chaks. Respondent No. 3 Jamuna was proposed allotment of a single chak on plot No. 114. The respondent No. 3 filed objections under section 20 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act. His grievance was that his original numbers were plot No. 114 as well as plot No. 229. According to him plot No. 229 is near the road. The Consolidation Officer rejected the objection of respondent No. 3. Respondent No. 3 filed an appeal. The Settlement Officer, Consolidation allowed his appeal and allotted to him a single chak on plot No. 229. Against this order the petitioner filed a revision, which was dismissed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation. The grievance of the petitioner is that he was allotted five chaks upto the stage of Consolidation Officer but the Settlement Officer, Consolidation allotted him a 6th chak on plot No. 114 which was the original number of respondent No. 3 which is situate far away from other chaks of the petitioner. The Deputy Director of Consolidation dismissed the revision.
(2.) I have heard Shri Triveni Shanker Counsel for the petitioner and Shri Mahesh Kumar holding brief for Shri Ashok Srivastava Counsel for respondent No. 3. The petitioner's grievance is that plot No. 114 is not the original number of the petitioner but is the original number of respondent No. 3 and that in the grounds of appeal filed by respondent No. 3 his demand was that he may be allotted a single chak on plot No. 229 and alternatively it a single chak on plot No. 229 cannot be allotted to him he may be allotted two chaks viz., one on his original number 114 and the other on plot No. 229 which too is his original number. It was submitted by Counsel for respondent No. 3 that plot No. 229 is not the original number of the petitioner and that respondent No. 3 also has his house, situate near plot No. 229 and therefore the allotment of a single chak on plot No. 229 is justified, as he is a small tenure holder having one bigha land. There is no finding of Deputy Director of Consolidation that respondent No. 3 has his house near pH No. 229. In para 24 of the writ petition it is alleged that no spot inspection was made either by the Settlement Officer, Consolidation or by the Deputy Director of Consolidation. This averment has been denied iir the counter-affidavit. In his order the Settlement Officer, Consolidation has observed that he has perused the record- and the map but there is no recital thal any spot inspection was made by him. No material has been filed by respondent No. 3 to indicate that spot inspection was made by the Settlement Officer, Consolidation. The Deputy Director of Consolidation has not considered what would be the loss respondent No 3 was likely to suffer if a single chak on plot No. 229 is not allotted to him vis-a-vis the loss that would be caused to the petitioner by allotting him a sixth chak on plot No. 114 far away from his other duks when plot No. 114 is not his original number. This aspect is required to be considered in the light of the demand made by the respondent No. 3 as an alternative prayer in the appeal itself that he may be given chak on his original plot No. 114 and on plot 229 if a single chak on plot No. 229 cannot be allotted to him. In these facts and circumstances it appears that the matter should be decided by the Deputy Director of Consolidation after making spot inspection. The Deputy Director of Consolidation after considering the submissions that may be made by the Counsel for the parties decide whether the 6th chak allotted to the petitioner on plot No. 114 be maintained or it should be abrogated. The Deputy Director of Consolidation shall consider whether am house of respondent is situate near the plot No. 229 and other relevant factors. The order of the Deputy Director, Consolidation dated 29.4.1994 is set aside and the Deputy Director of Consolidation is directed to decide tire matter afresh after making spot inspection.
(3.) With the aforesaid direction, this writ petition is allowed in part. Petition Allowed.;