Sudhir Narain Agarwal, J. - (1.) HEARD Sri Ashok Bhushan, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Ran Vijai Singh, learned counsel for the respondents. The dispute relates to allotment of plots No. 195/2 and 195/3. The petitioner is original tenure -holder of both these plots. Plot No. 195/2 is recorded as Abadi and on Plot No. 195/3 the petitioner has his boring. The Consolidation Officer recorded a finding that plot No. 195/2 is to be excluded. The petitioner, however, filed appeal in respect of plots No. 195/2 and 195/3. The Settlement Officer Consolidation instead of excluding these plots from the consolidation operations, valued these plots and after having fixed the valuation, allotted these plots to the contesting respondents No. 4 to 7. The petitioner, aggrieved against this order, filed revision before the Deputy Director of Consolidation. The Deputy Director of Consolidation dismissed the revision on 20.6.1992. Respondent No. 1 took the view that the petitioner was tenure -holder of an area of 1.65 acres and he has been allotted 1.59 acres. The boring was valued and the amount of Rs. 2,400/ - was given to the petitioner. Against this order the petitioner has filed this writ petition.
(2.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner urged that the petitioner had his Abadi on plot No. 195/2. It was adjoining to his house and on plot No. 195/3 he had his boring. The mere fact that the boring has been valued and the amount of compensation has been paid, was itself not sufficient for not allotting the same to the petitioner even if the land has been taken to have been valued and not kept out of consolidation proceedings. Learned counsel for the respondents contended that the Settlement Officer Consolidation had inspected the spot and to make the shape of the chak rectangular it was necessary that plot No. 195/2 and plot No. 195/3 should be allotted to the contesting respondents. The reasons which learned counsel for the respondents have given in the counter affidavit have not been assigned by the Settlement Officer Consolidation or the Deputy Director of Consolidation. It was the duty of respondent No. 1 to consider this aspect as to why plots No. 195/2 and 195/3 should not be allotted to the petitioner even if the same is valued. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case the writ petition is allowed and the order passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation on 20.6.1992 is hereby quashed. Respondent No. 1 shall decide the revision afresh keeping in view the observation made above. As the matter is quite old, respondent No. 1 shall decide it within two months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order. Parties shall, however, bear their own costs.;