- (1.) S. P. Srivastava, J. This petition was listed for admission on the last occasion. The matter was heard by me. The learned counsel for the parties agree that as the parties have exchanged counter and rejoinder affidavits this petition can be dis posed of on merit instead of giving a formal admission to the writ petition. I have seen the documents and the judgment. In my opinion also, with the consent of learned counsel for the parties, this petition can be disposed of finally without formally admit ting it. I, therefore, heard learned counsel for the parties on merit and the writ petition is being disposed of finally even at the ad mission stage.
(2.) THE brief facts of the case are that during the course of consolidation proceed ing at the stage of carvation of chak plot No. 106 was earmarked for Khalihan. Respon dent No. 3 Jayanti Prasad filed an objection before the Consolidation Officer to the ef fect that he has been allotted three chaks and one of the chaks may be formed on plot No. 106. THE Consolidation officer allowed this objection and made changes in the proposal and allotted plot No. 106 in the chak of the contesting respondents. Num ber of appeal were filed against the judg ment of the Consolidation Officer. THE petitioner also preferred an appeal against this judgment. All those appeals were dis posed of by an order dated 17-11-83 by the appellate authority (Settlement Officer of Consolidation ). THE appeals were allowed and the order of the Consolidation Officer was set aside, Plot No. 106 was ordered to be maintained as Khalihan after excluding it from the chak No. 81. Aggrieved by the order of the SOC, dated 17-11-83, Jayanti Prasad contesting respondent filed a revision before the Dy. Director of Con solidation. That revision was numbered as 140-Jayanti Prasad v. Shiv Prasad. This revision was dismissed by the D. D. C. on 8-3-84. THE finding which was recorded by the D. D. C. in this revision was that plot No. 106 which was held as Khalihan at the stage of consolidation (sic) and was given in the chak of respondent No. 3 was not proper, therefore, it will be separated from that chak. It is admitted fact that no writ petition was filed against that order. As such the order, in my opinion, became final on the subject i. e. so far as declaration of plot No. 106 as Khalihan, and its exclusion from the chak No. 81 is concerned. It appears that two more revisions were filed i. e. Revision Nos. 1094 and 1095 under Section 48 of the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act. THE first revision was filed by Jayanti Prasad respondent No. 3 whereas the second revision was filed by the Pradhan of Gaon Samaj against Jayanti Prasad. THEse two revisions were disposed of by the D. D. C. on 26- 4-85. This is the order which is under challenge in the present writ petition. The ground of attack in this petition is that the order dated 26-4-85 is in direct conflict with the order dated 8-3-84 which was passed in revision No. 140 filed by Jayanti Prasad and as a finding was recorded against Jayanti Prasad, he did not challenge in respect of exclusion of plot No. 106 from his chak No. 81 that finding became final and as such the Dy. Director of Consolida tion had no jurisdiction on the second oc casion i. e. on 26-4-85 to take a contrary view and to change the plot No. 106 should be given in Chak No. 81 in exchange. This order has also been challenged on merits placing reliance on the statement of wit nesses etc. Counter affidavit has been filed in this case on behalf of Sri Jayanti Prasad. In the counter-affidavit it has been stated that the petitioner has no right to file the present writ petition against the order dated 26-4-85 the impugned order, as he is not affected by that order and the order was passed in favour of Land Management Committee and in the interest of village people. His further contention is that plot No. 106 was wrongly earmarked far village Khalihan under the scheme as it was far away from the village and is a low lying land. There is water pits and the Land Management Committee had passed a resolution against such allot ment and as by the consent of the parties the Dy. Director of Consolidation vide im pugned order has allotted this plot in the chak of respondent No. 3 which is not going to effect the petitioner and the order passed by the D. D. C. is also in the interest of public at large. Therefore, there is no infirmity or illegality in the order dated 26-4-85 passed by the Dy. Director of Consolidation. The order need not be quashed.
(3.) THE Gaon Sabha also filed a counter-affidavit sworn by one Sri Amin Chandra (Ex. Pradhan ). In para 5 of the affidavit it has been stated that the state ment of Pradhan (sic) under Section 8-A of the Act were proposed by the village people and the consolidation committee to ear mark land for public purposes it was con sidered that as the plot No. 106 was not fit for Khalihan as it was away from the village, and further that the AC. O. without con sidering the view of the consolidation com mittee with some ulterior motive got this plot allotted for the purposes of Khalihan. An objection was filed by the members of the Land Management Committee. It is fur ther stated that Jayanti Prasad filed a revision before the D. p. C. and an order was passed by the D. D. C. on 8-3-84 without summoning the consolidation committee concerned and without giving any oppor tunity of hearing to the consolidation com mittee, therefore, that order was not proper and further with a view to protect the inter est of the village a second revision was filed in which the impugned order was passed. In this way the Gaon Sabha supported the im pugned order. Rejoinder-affidavit has also been filed reiterating the facts stated in the writ petition. Heard learned counsel for the par ties. A preliminary objection was raised by Sri S. N. Jaiswal, learned counsel for respon dent No. 3. Jayanti Prasad that the petitioner has no locus standi to maintain the present writ petition, as by the im pugned order his right has not been ef fected, therefore, the petition may be dis missed on this ground alone. In reply it was contended on behalf of the petitioner that by an order, dated 8-3-84 the revision of respondent No. 3 was dismissed on merit therefore, he has no right to raise this preliminary objection. The order dated 8-3-84 is final so far as the interest of respondent No. 3 is concerned. As such he has no leg to stand and contest the present writ petition. In reply it has been vehemently urged by Sri Jaiswal that as the petitioner has impleaded Jayanti Prasad as a party in the present writ petition, therefore, he has a right to content the present writ petition, As the parties have exchanged counter and rejoinder af fidavits it is not necessary for me to go into technicality of the petition, hence I am dis posing the controversy on merit.;