Janardan Sahai, J. - (1.) This writ petition arises out of chak allotment proceedings. It appears that the petitioners and respondents 3 to 8 are co-tenants. Plots no.307 and 318 were the original numbers of the parties. At the stage of the Asstt. Consolidation Officer three chaks were proposed to be allotted to the petitioners. These included allotments on the petitioners original no.318 which was entirely given to the petitioners and chak on plot no.307. Objections under Section 20 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act were fled by the petitioners. The Consolidation Officer made modification in the chaks and he took out some area from chak on plot no.318 and extended the area of the petitioners chak on plot no.307. The petitioners as well as respondents dissatisfied by the order filed two appeals before the Asstt. Settlement Officer, Consolidation., who dismissed both the appeals by his order dated 10.1.97. Against this order two revisions were preferred- one by the petitioners and the other by respondents 3, namely Nagendra and respondent no. 4 Ayodhya. The Dy. Director of Consolidation allowed the revisions of Ayodhya and Nagendra and dismissed the revision of the petitioners by his impugned order dated 6.5.98. Aggrieved the petitioners have filed the present petition.
(2.) I have heard Sri Ram Niwas Singh assisted by Sri Amrendra Singh counsel for the petitioners and Sri R.C.Singh counsel for respondents 3 and 4.
(3.) It was submitted by Sri Ram Niwas Singh that the Dy.Director of Consolidation has made the chak of the petitioners worse in that he has allotted to the petitioners a portion adjoining forest land on plot no.329. It is also submitted that the Dy. Director of Consolidation has allowed the revision of the respondents without giving any reasons and has dismissed the petitioners' revision without application of mind. I have perused the order of the Dy. Director Consolidation. All that the Dy. Director of Consolidation has observed while allowing the revisions of Nagendra and another is that they have been allotted chaks on the mool (original) numbers 307 and 318 and their demand for abolition of their chak on plot no.318 by giving them the chak entirely on plot no.307 cannot be accepted in its entirety. In my opinion on this basis itself without any further consideration of the case of the parties the revisions could not have been allowed. The Dy. Director of Consolidation has also not applied his mind to the case of the petitioners while dismissing their revision. For this reason, it is necessary that the matter should go back to the Dy. Director of Consolidation. The writ petition is according allowed. The order of the Dy. Director of Consolidation dated 6.5.98 is set aside. The Dy. Director of Consolidation shall decide the case afresh in accordance with law. It will be open to the parties to raise their respective contentions before the Dy. Director of Consolidation. The Dy. Director of Consolidation shall try to dispose of the revision expeditiously and if possible within four months from the date a certified copy of this order is produced before him. Petition allowed.;