- (1.) PRAKASH Krishna, J. Heard Shri M. K. Tripathi, Advocate for the petitioner and Shri Sumit Daga, learned Counsel for the contesting respondents. As jointly agreed by them, the writ petition is dis posed of finally at the admission stage it self.
(2.) THE contesting respondents have already filed a counter affidavit. THE pres ent writ petition arises out of allotment of Chaks under the provisions of U. P. C. H Act. It is not in dispute that petitioner's original holdings are plot Nos. 826 and 804. Accord ing to the petitioner, plot No. 796 belongs to Sarjeet Singh, the brother of petitioner. At the Consolidation Officer stage, the pe titioner was allotted one compact Chak area 0-18-4 high a over plot No. 796 and his brother Sarjeet Singh was allotted his chak No. 1918 over plot No. 825. Minor adjustments were made in appeal by the Settle ment Officer Consolidation, to which the petitioner has no grievance. It appears that the respondent Nos. 3 and 4 challenged the order of the Settlement Officer Consolida tion further by way of revision which came up for consideration before the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Saharanpur in re vision No. 1796, Sahendra and others v. Phool Singh and others. THE said revision has been allowed by the impugned order dated 29th October, 2005. THE said order is under challenge in the present writ petition. Contention of learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the impugned order is ex-parte. No opportunity of hearing was afforded to him by the Deputy Director of Consolidation before passing the impugned order. The learned Counsel for the respondents submits that the petitioner has al ready filed an application to recall the said order dated 29th of October, 2005 and as such, the petitioner should be relegated to press the restoration application first. Considered the respective sub missions of learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record.
(3.) ON a bare perusal of the im pugned order dated 29th October, 2005 it appears that while passing it, the Deputy Director of Consolidation has not at all ad verted to the case of the petitioner. The grievance of the petitioner is that he was allotted Chak at his original holding and there being no justification, his original holding has been disturbed by the im pugned order. A perusal of the impugned order would show that no reason has been as signed for not allotting the Chak to the pe titioner on his original holding. The im pugned order has been passed just to ac commodate the contesting respondent Nos. 3 and 4. While allotting the Chaks, the authorities concerned are required to take into consideration the respective cases of the parties. Moreover, the jurisdiction of the Deputy Director of Consolidation in such matters, is not so wide as to assume the charge of the first authority. The Deputy Director of Consolidation is required to assign reasons before setting aside the or der passed by the authorities below to it. Since the order does not contain any reason for disagreeing with the order of Settlement ' Officer Consolidation, the impugned order cannot he sustained.;