- (1.) Heard Sri Prashant Kumar Mishra for the petitioners and Sri Jagdev Singh, counsel for the caveator.
(2.) The writ petition has been filed against the order of Deputy Director of Consolidation dated 25.2.2016 passed in chak allotment proceeding under U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act").
(3.) Plot no.87, 165, 295 were joint holdings in which Jai Singh has 1/2 share and Smt. Jamuna Devi, mother of the petitioners, Charan Singh and Mahipal Singh(petitioners) as well as Doonger Singh have jointly 1/2 share. From the stage of Assistant Consolidation Officer, Jai Singh was proposed two chaks - first chak was allotted on plot no.165 etc. and second chak was allotted on plot no.295 etc. Jai Singh filed an objection before the Consolidation Officer against his proposed chaks. Smt. Jamuna Devi, mother of the petitioners, apart from the aforesaid joint holding had also plot nos.319 and 328. Assistant Consolidation has proposed single chak to Smt. Jamuna Devi on plot no.328 etc. Charan Singh(petitioner -1) was proposed single chak on plot no.295. Doonger Singh was proposed single chak on plot no.87 and Mahipal Singh was proposed single chak on plot no.295. 4.Charan Singh filed an appeal before the Settlement Officer, Consolidation for allotment of his chak on plot no.87 adjoining to chak of his brother Doonger Singh. Mahipal Singh, petitioner -2 also filed an appeal for allotment of chak on plot no.87. Settlement Officer, Consolidation, consolidated both the appeals and by order dated 21.8.2015 allowed the appeal in respect of allotting chak on plot no.87 to petitioner -1 and his brother Mahipal Singh was allotted chak on plot no.165. Jai Singh, respondent -6 filed a revision against the order of Settlement Officer, Consolidation. The revision was heard by the Deputy Director of Consolidation, who by order dated 25.2.2016 found that although Jai Singh had 1/2 share in plot no.165 but according to his share in plot no.165 he was not allotted chak on it. On this finding he allowed the revision and set aside the order of Settlement Officer, Consolidation and restored the chak of the petitioners of the stage of Assistant Consolidation Officer. Hence, this petition has been filed. 5.I have considered the arguments of the counsel for the parties and examined the record. So far as Jai Singh is concerned, he was allotted single chak on his original holding on plot no.165. The claim of the petitioner and his brother before the appellate court was for allotment of chak on plot no.87 adjoining to chak of his brother Doonger Singh but the Settlement Officer, Consolidation instead of allotting chak on plot no.87 allotted chak to the petitioner -1 on plot no.87 and Mahipal Singh on plot no.165. Thus, claim of the petitioner -2 for allotment of chak adjoining to chak of his brother Doonger Singh was not accepted by the Settlement Officer, Consolidation rather chak of Jai Singh was disturbed due to which Jai Singh was allotted two chaks. Deputy Director of Consolidation has set aside the order of Settlement Officer, Consolidation and at present all the cosharers, namely, Jai Singh, Smt. Jamuna Devi, Charan Singh, Doonger Singh and Mahipal Singh were allotted single chak. So far as the claim of the petitioners for allotment of chaks adjoining to chak of their brother Doonger Singh is concerned, chak of the petitioner -1 as allotted by Deputy Director of Consolidation is at present adjoining to the chak of Mahipal Singh and nearby to the chak of their mother Smt. Jamuna Devi. Thus, claim of the petitioners that their chaks be adjoining to the chak of their brother appears to be satisfied as such they were allotted chaks adjoining to each other. So far as the order of Settlement Officer Consolidation is concerned, by the order of Settlement Officer, Consolidation Jai Singh was allotted two chaks without assigning any reason. The petitioners, their brother and mother were allotted single chak. All of them cannot be allotted single chak on plot no.87 or on plot no.165. Thus, claim of the petitioners that their chaks, chak of their brother and mother be allotted at one place cannot be satisfied. Equity has been adjusted by the Deputy Director of Consolidation and no interference is required by this Court. 6.The counsel for the petitioners submits that Deputy Director of Consolidation has not summoned the lower court record and decided the revision without having gone through lower court record although under Section 48 of the Act summoning of lower record was mandatory. He relied upon a judgment of this Court in Raj Nath and others vs. Deputy Director of Consolidation, Jaunpur and others, 2015 (11) ADJ 688. 7.I have considered the arguments of the counsel for the petitioners in this respect also. 8.Deputy Director of Consolidation in the impugned order has noted that he has examined the record. For the purpose of deciding chak allotment dispute record of CH Form 23 as well as chak maps are necessary. Deputy Director of Consolidation while deciding chak allotment disputes used to have necessary consolidation papers before him. Thus, instead of summoning lower court record, he decided revision on the basis of other original record. So far as lower court record is concerned, in lower court record apart from the objection of the petitioners there was no other record as such due to non summoning of lower court record no prejudice has been caused to the petitioners. In the circumstance, no interference is required by this Court. The writ petition has no merit and it is dismissed. ;