- (1.) ASHOK Bhushan, J. Heard Sri A. P. Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri R. C. Singh, learned counsel appearing for the contesting re spondents,
(2.) BY this writ petition, the petitioners have prayed for quashing the order dated 26th December, 2007 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation in Revision No. 5/390/468/537/81, Revision No. 6/642/791 of 2005 and the order dated 11lh February, 1981 passed by the Settlement Officer of Consolidation as well as the order dated 10th April, 2006 passed by the Consolidation Officer. Brief facts necessary for deciding the writ petition are; the petitioners were allotted Chak No. 571 in chak allotment proceedings under the U. P. Consolida tion of Holdings Act, 1953. The Assistant Consolidation Officer proposed three chaks to the petitioners' father, Madan Gopal. An objection was filed by petition ers' father under Section 20 of U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 objecting allotment of Chak on Plot No. 1163 etc. The Consolidation Officer decided the objection affecting certain changes in the chak of the petitioners and other tenure holders. An appeal was filed by the petitioners before the Settlement Officer of Consolidation. The respondents and other tenure holders also filed appeals. The Settlement Officer of Consolidation made spot inspection and after hearing all the parties decided the appeal by order dated 11th February, 1981. The Settlement Officer of Consolidation recorded in the order that petitioners' father was agree able that his chak at Plot No. 1267 be totally removed and the valuation be added in his chak at Plot No. 1170. Against the order passed by Settlement Officer of Consolidation a revision was filed by petitioners' father challenging the order passed by Settlement Officer of Consolidation in different appeals. The Deputy Director of Consolidation initially by order dated 15th April, 2002 allowed the revision, which order, however, was subsequently recalled. An order was passed on 12th July, 1996 rejecting the impleadment application of one Yasin and thereafter dismiss ing the revision. Against the said orders a writ petition being Writ Petition No. 26420 of 1996 was filed by the petitioners, which writ petition was disposed of directing the Deputy Director of Consolidation to dispose of the revision finally within a period of three months. An objection regarding maintainability of the revision was raised by the respondents, which was decided by order dated 28lh February, 2002 holding the revision maintainable. Subsequently on an application moved for recall of the order by Manokamna and others the order dated 28th February, 2002 was recalled on 12th May, 2006. The petitioners filed a writ petition challenging the aforesaid order. This Court by order dated 10th July, 2006 passed in Writ Petition No. 30957 of 2006 disposed of the writ petition directing the Deputy Director of Consolidation to decide the revision after hearing the concerned parties on merits. The respondents moved an application for modification of the above order of this Court, which application was disposed of permitting the respondents to raise all the questions of law and facts before the Deputy Director of Consolidation includ ing the question of maintainability. Subsequently, the Deputy Director of Consoli dation by the impugned order dated 26"1 December, 2007 has rejected the revi sion. In the writ petition order dated 26th December, 2007 has been prayed to be quashed. Another set of orders, which have sought to be quashed in the writ petition are the order dated 10lh April, 2006 passed by the Consolidation Officer under Rule 109 of U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Rules, 1954 and the order of Deputy Director of Consolidation dated 26th December, 2007 dismissing the revi sion filed by the petitioners against the order dated 10 April, 2006. Learned counsel for the petitioners challenging the orders, contended that the order of the Settlement Officer of Consolidation dated 11 " February, 1981 was an order by which petitioners' chak, which was in good quality fertile land, was removed and the chak had been given to the petitioners in low water logging land of less valuation. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that petitioners' father did not enter into any compromise before the Settlement Officer of Consoli dation agreeing to take chak in Tal area. He contends that Deputy Director of Consolidation having once held that revision was maintainable by order dated 28th February, 2002, it was not open for the Deputy Director of Consolidation to hold that revision was not maintainable.
(3.) SRI R. C. Singh, learned counsel appearing for the contesting respondents, refuting the submission of counsel for the petitioners, contends that the order of Settlement Officer of Consolidation was passed on consent given by petitioners' father and it was not open for the petitioners' father to file a revision or challenge the amendment made by the Settlement Officer of Consolidation. He contends that in the revision filed against the order dated 11lh February, 1981 even the consent was not challenged. Learned counsel submits that petitioners' father having once given consent for modification of his chak, it was not open for him to challenge the said consent. Reliance has been place on the judgment of this Court reported in 1999 (90) R. D. 212, Som Datta v. Deputy Director of Consolida tion, Saharanpur, and the judgment of the Apex Court reported in A. I. R. 1982 S. C. 1249; State of Maharashtra v. Ramdas Shrinivas Nayak and others, and AIR 2003 SC 2418, Roop Kumarv. Mohan Thedani. I have considered the submissions raised by learned counsel for the par ties and perused the record.;