Janardan Sahai, J. - (1.) Hon'ble Counter and rejoinder affidavits have been exchanged in this writ petition. Counsel for the parties agree that this writ petition may be disposed of at the admission stage itself.
(2.) This petition arises out of chak allotment proceedings. The petitioner and Respondent No.2 are co-tenants and the plot no. 698 was a co-tenancy plot. Objections were filed before the Consolidation Officer. The Consolidation Officer, it is stated by the counsel for the parties, allotted plot no. 698 to both the parties in part. Against the order of the Consolidation Officer, an appeal was preferred by Respondent No.2, which was dismissed by the Settlement Officer, Consolidation. The Respondent No.2 then filed a revision. The revision of Respondent No.2 was allowed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation. The Deputy Director of Consolidation found that Respondent No.2 was allotted two chaks on his original holding. The demand of Respondent No.2 was that his chak on plot nos. 230, 231, 233 etc be abolished and the area may be allotted on his first chak on plot no. 681, 682 etc where he also had 'Devsthan' and boring on plot no. 698. The Deputy Director of Consolidation accepted the demand of respondent no.2 and he abolished the chak of respondent no.2 on plot no. 230 etc. and allotted those plots to the petitioner. It appears that the against the order of the Deputy Director of Consolidation, the petitioner filed a restoration application. Counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner has already applied for withdrawal of the restoration application and that he is not pressing the contention that the order of the Deputy Director of Consolidation was exparte and concedes that the order was passed after hearing the parties.
(3.) The contention of the petitioner's counsel is that while modifying the chak of the parties, the Deputy Director of Consolidation has not considered the loss which would be occasioned to the petitioner and he has simply accepted the demand of respondent no.2 without assigning reason. A perusal of the order of the Deputy Director of Consolidation indicates that the Deputy Director of Consolidation has observed that the second chak of Respondent No.2 on plot no. 230 etc was on high level and poor quality of land. Counsel for the petitioner submits if the high level and poor quality of land is allotted to the petitioner, he would also be faced with the same disadvantage which the Deputy Director of Consolidation has pointed out in the case of Respondent No.2. Counsel for the respondent no.2 submitted that there has been a private partition between the parties in which plot no. 698 was allotted to Respondent No.2. The Deputy Director of Consolidation has not given any finding that there was any private partition in which plot no. 698 was allotted to respondent no.2 nor has he given any finding that 'devasthan and boring' situated at plot no.698 belong to Respondent No.2. In the circumstances the writ petition is allowed. The order of the Deputy Director of Consolidation 28.2.2007 is set aside The matter is sent back to the Deputy Director of Consolidation for fresh decision. It will be open to the parties to raise all their contentions before the Deputy Director of Consolidation. The Deputy Director of Consolidation shall decide the matter expeditiously and if possible within a period of six months from the date a certified copy of this order is filed before him by either of the parties. Petition allowed.;