- (1.) S. K. Singh, J. Heard Sri Srivastava, learned Advocate in support of this petition and Sri Tripathi, learned Advocate who appeared for the respondents.
(2.) CHALLENGE is to the order passed by the Deputy Director, Consolidation by which in the revision certain changes in the chaks of the parties have been made. Proceedings are under section 20 of UPCH Act which is in respect to allotment of plots in the chak of the parties. Needless to say that in these proceedings both parties can never be satisfied as it is not possible to accept the claim of both sides in its entirety and thus the approach of the Court is to see that whether there is any violation of section 19 of the UPCH Act or petitioner can be said to have suffered any serious prejudice calling for interference in the equity jurisdiction of this Court. Argument of learned Counsel for petitioner is that the order of Deputy Director, Consolidation is very cryptic, non speaking and the claim/hardship of the petitioner has not been even touched and just on mere asking of revisionist, revision has been allowed. Submission is that claim of revisionist might be justified and that may be accepted but at the same time, comparative hardship and inconvenience of petitioner was also to be examined. Submission is that grievance of petitioner of irrigation facility and other thing has not been considered and therefore, judgment of the Deputy Director, Consolidation needs interference.
(3.) IN response to aforesaid, Sri Tripathi, learned Counsel submits that the Deputy Director, Consolidation is the last Court for balancing the equity between the parties and therefore, if on consideration of entire facts adjustment has been made then that is not to be interfered by this Court. In view of aforesaid, this Court has examined the matter.;