- (1.) ASHOK Bhushan, J. Heard Sri J. P. Singh, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri Satish Dwivedi, learned Counsel appearing for the respondents No. 3 and 4.
(2.) BY this writ petition the petitioner has prayed for quashing the order dated 25. 2. 2008, passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation by which the revisions filed by the respondents No. 3 and 4 were allowed. The brief facts necessary for deciding the writ petition are; the petitioners as well as respondents No. 3 and 4 belong to same family. The petitioners and contesting respondents are co-tenure holders of plots No. 36, 37, 38, 39,40 and 45. In chak carvation proceedings, the petitioners No. 1 and 2 who were father and son were allotted chak No. 891 and 1191. The respondent No. 3 was allotted chak No. 890 and respondent No. 4 was allotted chak at plot No. 1170. The respondent No. 3 Rajnath was allotted three chaks by Assistant Consolidation Officer one at plot No. 418, second at plot No. 1519/1 and third at plot Nos. 104,105,106. Objection was filed by the respondent No. 3 under Section 21 of the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act praying for allotment of plot No. 45 which was adjoining to the road. The objection was allowed. The Consolidation Officer de leted the chak of the respondent No. 3 from plot No. 1519 and allotted him chak at plot No. 45 area. 2091. The respondent No. 4, wife of respondent No. 3 was allotted single chak at plot Nos. 1518 and 1519. Appeals were filed against the order of the Consolidation Officer by respondents No. 3 and 4 as well as by the petitioner No. 1. The respondent No. 3 in his appeal claimed that respondent No. 3 be given a bigger chak at plot No. 45 and at the same place area from plots No. 1519 and 1520 be added. The respondent No. 3 further prayed that his chak Nos. 104,105 and 106 be deleted. The respondent No. 4 in her appeal had stated that she had been given chak at plot Nos. 1519 and 1518 towards north of which chak of her husband, respondent No. 3, had been carved out on plot No. 45. It was prayed by respondent No. 4 that her chak be carved out in a manner so that her chak should be adjacent to the chak of her husband. The Settlement Officer Consolidation vide order dated 30. 6. 2005 dismissed the appeal of respondent No. 4, allowed the appeal of respondent No. 3 partly and allowed the appeal filed by the petitioner No. 1. The Settlement Officer Consolidation took out plot No. 45 from the chak of respondent No. 3 and allotted the same to the petitioner No. 1. Revisions were filed both by the respondents No. 3 and 4 which have been al lowed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation again restoring plot No. 45 in chak of respondent No. 3. This writ petition has been filed challenging the order of the Deputy Director of Consolidation. Sri J. P. Singh, learned Counsel for the petitioners challenging the order of the Deputy Director of Consolidation contended that the Deputy Director of Consolidation has allowed the revision without giving any reason for affecting the chak of the petitioners. It is contended that the petitioners has also 1/3rd share at plot No. 45. It is submitted that neither any spot inspection has been made by the Deputy Director of Consolidation nor the Deputy Director of Consolidation has considered the submission raised on behalf of the petitioners. It was further con tended that since the appeal of Rajnath Singh was allowed hence, he could not have maintained the revision. The claim of respondent No. 3 that under oral settle ment he was given plots No. 37 and 45, was incorrect. It was contended that plots No. 45 and 1520 are the only plots adjoining the road. 9. Sri Satish Dwivedi, learned Counsel appearing for the respondents submit ted that plot Nos. 37, 38, 39, 40 and 45 are the original holdings of the parties and were adjoining the road near the house of the parties. It is submitted by learned Counsel for the respondents that petitioners have already been allotted chak on plot Nos. 38, 39, 1520 and plot No. 45 was the only plot which was adjoining to the road and allotted to the respondent No. 3. It is submitted that Settlement Officer Consolidation misconstrued the reliefs claimed in the appeal by the re spondent No. 3 and without giving any reason took out plot No. 45 from the chak of the respondent No. 3. Learned Counsel for the petitioners placed reliance on judgments of this Court in the case of (Smt.) Akbari v. Deputy Director of Consoli dation, Moradabad and others, 2005 (98) RD 586; Nand Kishore and others v. Deputy Director of Consolidation and others, 2004 (96) RD 447; Imlak v. Deputy Director of Consolidation, Saharanpur and others, 2004 (96) RD 629; Damodar v. Deputy Director of Consolidation and others, 2004 (96) RD 290. 6. I have considered the submissions of learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record. 7. C. H. Form 23 has been brought on the record of the respondents No. 3 and 4 from which it is clear that the parties were co-tenure holders of plot Nos. 36, 37, 38,39,40,45 and other plots. The respondent No. 3 had 1/3rd share in the afore said plots. A chak map has been brought on record which indicates that plot Nos. 1520, 45, 36, 37, 38 and 39 are on the chak road. Plot Nos. 35, 38, 39 and 1520 were allotted in the chak of the petitioner No. 1. Plot No. 45 was the only plot which was allotted to the respondent No. 3 by the Consolidation Officer on objec tion which plot was on the road. The petitioners have not brought on record, the order of the Consolidation Officer, by which the objection of the respondent No. 3 was allowed and the respondent No. 3 was allotted plot No. 45. The Settlement Officer Consolidation by order dated 30. 6. 2005 took out plot No. 45 entirely from the chak of the respondent No. 3. The only reason given by the Settlement Officer Consolidation in the order for taking out plot No. 45 was that the chak of the respondent No. 3 be ( carved out adjoining the chak of his wife Seeta Devi. Neither any reason was given by the Settlement Officer Consolidation as to why plot No. 45 be taken out from the chak of the respondent No. 3 nor the Settlement Officer Consolidation even referred to the reasons given by the Consolidation Officer for allowing the objection of respondent No. 3 with regard to plot No. 45. An appeal was filed by the respondent No. 4 praying that her chak be made adjoining to the chak of her husband. The chak appeal of respondent No. 4 was Appeal No. 614. The Settlement Officer Consolidation dismissed the chak appeal No. 614 and gave reason for taking out plot No. 45 to the effect that the chak of respondent No. 3 is made adjoining to his wife. The respondents No. 3 and 4 aggrieved by the order of the Settlement Officer Consolidation filed revision. The Deputy Director of Consolidation in the impugned order has held that absolutely there was no justi fication for removing the chak of respondent No. 3 from plot No. 45, which was adjoining the road. There cannot be any dispute that a tenure holder is entitled to have his chak on his plot, which is adjoining to the road. The Consolidation Officer allowed the objection of respondent No. 3 and allotted him plot No. 45, which was taken out by the Settlement Officer Consolidation without giving any reason. The Deputy Director of Consolidation has rightly taken the view that the respondent No. 3 could not have been removed from his chak at plot No. 45. There was sufficient justification for allowing the chak of respondents No. 3 and 4 adjoining to each other, they being husband and wife. The submission of the petitioner that the case of the petitioner was not considered by the Deputy Director of Consoli dation, is not correct. It was the petitioners who were allotted plot No. 45 by the Settlement Officer Consolidation. The Deputy Director of Consolidation held that there was no reason for removing the chak of the respondent No. 3 from plot No. 45 which was adjoining the road. The above reason was the basis of the order of the Deputy Director of Consolidation. From the order of the Settlement Officer Consolidation, it is clear that the Settlement Officer Consolidation did not give any reason for removing the chak of the respondent No. 3 from plot No. 45. The Deputy Director of Consolidation emphasising on the above fact, has rightly al lowed the revision. The respondents in their affidavit have also brought on record a site plan of different plots which were original holdings of the parties and their allotment which site plan matches with the chak map field by the petitioner as Annexure-4. A perusal of the chak map and site plan indicates that plots No. 1520, 45, 37, 3839, 45 were the plots on the chakroad. The plot No. 45 was the only plot which was given to the respondent No. 3 which was on the chakroad. The submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioners that prayer of Rajnath Singh having been allowed by Settlement Officer Consolidation, he had no reason to file a revision is wholly misconceived. The Settlement Officer Consolidation on the pretext of giving chak to respondent No. 3 near his wife has taken out plot No. 45 from the chak of respondent No. 3 whereas in the chak appeal, the prayer of the respondent No. 3 was that he should be given more area on plot No. 45 and chak of his wife be made adjacent to his chak at Plot No. 45, which was road side plot having been taken out from the chak of the respondent No. 3, he has every reason to file a revision. The judgments relied by learned Counsel for the peti tioner needs to be referred. The first judgment is in the case of Smt. Akbari v. Deputy Director of Consolidation (supra ). The dispute in the said case was with regard to chak nali. The said judgment was on its own facts. In the said judgment, the Court held that various findings and changes made by the revisional Court were apparently against the claim of the parties, and due to above. reason this Court interfered in the order of the Deputy Director of Consolidation. In the case of Nand Kishore (supra), this Court laid down that in the chak adjustment convenience and hardship of the parties have to be comparatively weighed. This Court has further held that neither opportunity was given nor reasons were assigned hence, the order was to be set aside. The said case was also on its own facts and does not help the petitioner in the present case. The judgment of this Court in Imlak (supra) was a case, where this Court interfered with the order of the Deputy Director of Consolidation on the ground that order of Deputy Director of Consoli dation was a non speaking order. The judgment in the case of Damodar (supra) was also a case where the order was interfered with on the ground that authorities have not applied their mind. The facts of the present case are different where the Deputy Director of Consolidation has given cogent reasons for allowing the revi sion. 8. In view of the foregoing discussion, I do not find any error in allowing the revision, which may warrant any interference by this Court, while exercising the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The writ petition is dis missed. .;