- (1.) RAN Vijai Singh, J. I have heard Shri Chandra Kumar Rai, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Shri Shri D. S. P. Singh, learned Counsel for the respondents.
(2.) THIS writ petition has been filed for issuing a writ of certiorari quashing the order dated 10. 3. 2000 passed by the Dep uty Director of Consolidation by which the petitioner's Revision has been dismissed on the ground that the petitioner has been al lotted chak adjacent to the plot No. 27 which is original holding and his pumping set is installed over there. The facts giving rise to this case are that petitioner has filed Revision chal lenging the order of the Settlement Con solidation Officer dated 19. 3. 1991 on the ground that the plot No. 194, 197, 226 and 285, 183 measuring area about 1. 5 acre are adjacent to the link road, but no chak has been allotted to the petitioner or his co-sharer, Shri Hausila Prasad Singh over there. The said Revision was allowed vide order dated 21. 9. 1992. The aforesaid order was challenged by the respondent No. 2 through writ petition No. 38193 of 1992. This writ petition was allowed by this Court on 20. 2. 1998. The operative portion of the order passed in that writ petition is quoted below: "the contention of the petitioner is that the respondent No. 1 has illegally assumed that the petitioner is origi nal tenure-holder of plot Nos. 30,31, and 32 and on this supposition he has passed the impugned order. This fact has not been denied in the counter affidavit. As the order of re spondent No. 1 has been passed on mistaken assumption, the im pugned order dated 21. 9. 1992 (Annexure-6 to the writ petition) is hereby quashed. The writ petition is allowed. The Deputy Director of Consolidation, Varansi respondent No. 1 is directed to decide the revi sion afresh in accordance with law possibly within three months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order before him after giving opportunity to the contesting respondents or any other persons who may be affected by the order proposed to be passed. " It appears that the deputy Director of Consolidation has wrongly assumed that the plot Nos. 30, 31 and 32 belong to the respondent No. 2 and carved out the chak whereas in para 7 of the writ petition No. 38193/92 filed by opposite party No. 2, it is stated that the original plot Nos. 28, 22 and 39 are of the petitioner (now opposite party No. 2 ). In case the petitioner (opposite party in earlier writ petition) is allotted chak on plots No. 194, 197 the petitioner (opposite party No. 2 now) be allotted chak on his original holdings i. e. plots No. 28, 22 and 29. On this ground the writ petition was allowed and the matter was remitted back before the Deputy Director of Consolidation to decide afresh.
(3.) NOW, the Deputy Director of Con solidation has passed impugned order with out considering the direction of this Court contained in the judgement dated 20. 2. 1998 as that part of the order has not been dis cussed while passing the impugned order. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that there was lis between the petitioner and respondent No. 2 and the Deputy Director of Consolidation while passing the impugned order dated 10. 3. 2000 has not taken into consideration petitioner's main grievance for allotment of the chak on his original holding i. e. plot Nos. 194 and 197 etc. which are adjacent to the link road and in this way he has deprived the petitioner from his valuable land. In his submission, the Deputy Direc tor of Consolidation could not deprive the petitioner from his valuable land situated at the road side and the order to that extent is untenable particularly in the circum stances when the respondent No. 2 himself has conceded and demanded chak on his original holding i. e. on plots No. 28, 22 and 29. In support of his submission, he has placed reliance upon the judgment of this Court Ram Chandar v. Deputy Director of Consolidation, Varanasi and others, 2006 (100) RD 212 where this Court has held that (on the strength of Government order dated 22. 5. 1981) for al lotment of chak to the original tenure holder on the road side in proportion to the area of their original holding adjacent to the road. Since in this case the petitioner's land according to his own case is not adja cent to the main road and it is situated at the side of the link road connecting the main Panch Koshi Parikrama Road, there fore, prima facie, the Government order appears to be not applicable in this case. However, this aspect is also open to be ex amined by learned Deputy Director of Consolidation coupled with the fact that the petitioner's specific ground taken in the Memo of Revision has not been considered by the Deputy Director of Consolidation as according to him the plot Nos. 194 and 197 etc. which have been mentioned in ground No. 1 of the Revision have great potential, therefore, the Deputy Director of Consoli dation should have discussed about the same in view of the earlier decision of this Court. The entire order of Deputy Director of Consolidation is based on the ground that since the tubewell of the petitioner is situated on plot No. 27, therefore, his chak has been carved out adjacent to the plots including plot Nos. 28 and 29 where the pumping set is installed.;