Lakshmi Prasad, J. - (1.) This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. There was a dispute in regard to the disputed plot No. 1282 before the consolidation authorities between the petitioner on the one hand and one Bhagwati Prasad on the other hand. That dispute resulted in reconciliation and according to that reconciliation plot No. 1282 was allowed to be recorded in the name of the petitioner as its sirdar. Some time subsequent to the allotment of Chak and delivery of possession as a result of which plot No. 1282 went to the Chak of Newaz Ali, opposite party No. 3, an application was moved by opposite party No. 3 alleging that as against the recorded area of plot No. 1282 namely 8 biswas 15 dhurs, it was much less on the spot and the correction be accordingly made. This application of opposite party No. 3 was rejected by the Consolidation Officer and the appeal too to the Settlement Officer was dismissed. On a revision by opposite party No. 3 Deputy Director (Consolidation) remanded the case to the Settlement Officer (Consolidation) with the direction that Consolidation Officer may be required to make a reference under Section 48(3) of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act. A reference was then accordingly made and as a result of measurements taken it was found that the area of plot No. 1282 was in fact only 4 biswas and odd on the spot. This finding was upheld by the Deputy Director notwithstanding the objection of the petitioner that since there were no boundaries on the spot of any of the plots since after the formation of Chaks and delivery of possession to the various Chak-holders, it was impossible to measure the plots and find out their respective areas. It is in these circumstances that the present petition is filed with a prayer that the order passed by the Deputy Director under Section 48(3) of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act on the basis of measurements be quashed.
(2.) The petition is opposed by opposite party No. 3. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and opposite party No. 3. The contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is two-fold. His first contention is that the measurement relied on by the Settlement Officer (Consolidation) in his order dated March 18, 1966, a copy of which is annexure 1 to the petition, is obviously wrong as appears on a comparison between the map prepared by the Consolidation Officer, annexure 3 and the settlement map, annexure 4. It is thus argued that this Court should either find that it is impossible to make measurements at this stage because of the absence of the boundaries of the various plots on the spot or should at any rate quash the impugned order with the direction that correct measurements be made afresh. In my opinion the contention is not tenable. Whether the measurements conducted by the Consolidation Officer are correct or otherwise is a matter to be determined by the consolidation authorities and cannot be reopened in a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution for the reason that is essentially a simple question of fact. This court cannot, in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, compare the two maps as desired by the learned counsel and come to a conclusion for itself that the measurement conducted by the Consolidation Officer is incorrect. In my view the point urged by the learned counsel does not raise any of the known questions on the basis of which it is possible to interfere under Article 226 of the Constitution. An interference under Article 226 of the Constitution is possible only if the impugned order lacks jurisdiction or suffers from a patent error of law. The point raised by the learned counsel does not fall under any of these categories. I accordingly repel the contention.
(3.) The other contention raised by the learned counsel is that the remedy of opposite party No. 3 was by way of an objection under Section 20 of the Consolidation of Holdings Act and not by way of an application long after allotment and delivery of Chaks. It may be so. Still I fail to see as to how the failure on the part of opposite party No. 3 to file an objection under Section 20 of the Act takes away the jurisdiction of the Director to take action under Section 48(3) of the Act. Simply because action under Section 48(3) came to be taken by opposite party No. 1 in the instant case on a motion made by opposite party No. 3, it would not alter the position. I accordingly do not see any substance in this contention.;