- (1.) S. N. Srivastava, J. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.
(2.) THIS writ petition is directed against the judgment and dated 8-3-2001 passed by Deputy Director of Consolidation, Bulandshahr by which four Revisions No. 206, Ram Prasad v. Tuki Ram, 257 Ram Prasad v. Raj Pal, 199 Tuki Ram v. Raj Pal and 2002 Dharm Dutt v. Sanjiv, were allowed and chaks were altered. Learned Counsel for petitioner urged that by the impugned order, original plot No. 156 was taken out from petitioner's chak in which his private source of irrigation i. e. tube-well situates without application of mind of the reliefs claimed and the principles and down under Section 19 of U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act by Deputy Director of Consolidation. He further urged that the grievance of revisionist was also not considered by the Deputy Director of Consolidation. Learned Counsel for petitioner urged that the schedule prepared, which is part of the order, was also not prepared according to the judgment, but the schedule was prepared without any application of mind. The schedule was prepared having no concern with the judgment. In view of the above, judgment is vitiated in law. Sri Vinod Sinha, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of Ram Prasad, contesting-opposite party, is not able to show even a single word from the impugned order where the grievance/case of petitioner was considered by Deputy Director of Consolidation while reversing the judgment and order of Settlement Officer Consolidation. Learned Counsel further urged that petitioner is not aggrieved at all as plot No. 156 was given to some of his co-tenure-holder which was not allotted to Ram Prasad contesting Opposite Party. He further urged that in view of the above, petitioner is not an aggrieved party as his plot No. 156 was given to his cousin and real brother who were allotted a separate chak.
(3.) CONSIDERED the argument of the parties. It transpires from the impugned order that order does not contain any reason for reversal of the allotment made by Settlement Officer Consolidation on plot No. 156 which was the original holding of petitioner and was allotted itself alongwith tube-well. The Deputy Director of Consolidation exercises judicial function while deciding the revision under Section 48 of U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act. The intention of Legislature while enacting U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act is clear from its objective which makes it clear that it is to Consolidate the holdings for development of agriculture. It is clear from the record that in plot No. 156 a tube-well of petitioner is situated. This land was allotted to petitioner upto the stage of Settlement Officer Consolidation but that was changed by the impugned order by Deputy Director of Consolidation on revisional stage. It is also apparent that Deputy Director of Consolidation while reversing the judgment of Settlement Officer Consolidation did not apply its mind to meet out reasons recorded by Subordinate Consolidation Authorities. This is a case where revisional authority did not apply judicial mind for reversal of the judgment of Subordinate Consolidation Authorities.;