Sudhir Narain, J. - (1.) This writ petition is directed against the order dated 31-3-1997, passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation.
(2.) The petitioners had original plot Nos. 1022 and 1023. The valuation of these plots was fixed at 70 paisa. The petitioners were allotted chaks on plot Nos. 681, 682 and 683. Originally these plots were valued at 80 paisa. The consolidation officer subsequently raised it to 100 paisa. The Deputy Director of Consolidation came to the conclusion that this order of the consolidation officer was erroneous and on consideration of material on record came to the conclusion that instead of 100 paisa it should be reduced to 90 paisa. The chak of the petitioner was accordingly adjusted modified.
(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners had original plot Nos. 1022 and 1023 the valuation of which was 70 paisa and the valuation of the plots which have now been given to them is 90 paisa, with the result that the total area of the petitioner is reduced by 25 percent. The petitioner has not given the details as to what was the total original area of the petitioners and after the allotment of the chak how much area has been allotted to them. Clause (b) of Sub-section (i) of Section 19, of the U.P. Consolidation of holdings Act provides that except with the permission of the Director of Consolidation the area of the holdings allotted to tenure-holder shall not differ from the area of his original holding or holdings by more than 25 percent of the later. In case the total area of the original holding of the petitioner stands reduced by 25 percent, it will be open to the petitioners to file an application before respondent No. 1 and on such application respondent No. 1 will consider the same by a reasoned order after affording opportunity to the petitioner and the opposite parties and such other persons who may be affected by the order. The next contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the original valuation of the plots Nos. 681, 682 and 683 were 80 paisa but it has been wrongly enhanced to 90 paisa. A perusal of the order of respondent No. 1 indicates that he has considered the circumstances for giving the valuation. In that respect the order does not suffer from any manifest error of law. The writ petition is dismissed subject to the observation/directions given above.;