R. M. Sahai, J. - (1.) NORMALLY this court, in exercise of its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is reluctant to interfere ' with orders passed by the Consolidation Authorities in proceedings initiated under Section 20 of the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act for allotment of chaks. But the facts of the case are so glaring that it leaves one bewildered.
(2.) THE facts of this case speak for themselves. THEy demonstrate the arbitrary exercise of power by an authority who is entrusted with the pious responsibility of adjudicating claims of mostly poor, illiterate and ignorant agriculturist. In provisional consolidation scheme prepared under Section 20 of the Act chak nos. 164, 127 and 132 were proposed to be allotted to petitioner, opposite party no. 2 (Siddique) and Mubarak father of opposite party no. 2 respectively. Plot no. 150 belonging to Siddique or Mubarak was shown in chak no. 164. Notices of this were served on tenure-holders and no objections were filed either by Siddique or Mubarak. Possession was delivered on 1-7-71. After eight months of finalisation of scheme both Siddique and Mubarak filed separate objections on 23-8-71 under Section 21 (1) before Assistant Consolidation Officer claiming allotment on their original numbers 193 and 194 and in the alternative on 149 and 150. THE objections were referred to Consolidation Officer who dismissed them on 6-10-71 after hearing and making local inspection. THE finding recorded by him indicates the state of affairs which existed at the spot and throw light on the conduct of Siddique : "I have heard both the objectors and opposite parties chak holder no. 164. I have also inspected the spot and I have also examined the records. THE chak-holder no. 132 has been given the chak on the major portion of his original holding. To allot two chaks to this objector would defeat the purpose of consolidation. THE allegation of the chak holder no. 132 that his house is situated on the boundary of plot no. 150 is quite incorrect. THE objector has constructed a dalan in plot No. 565 which is abadi plot and sufficient land is lying in front of his dalan. THE allegation of chak-holder no. 127 that the land included in his chak is not good, is incorrect. No doubt this chak-holder has not been given original plot but his chak has been given in front of his house. THE objector is not agreeable to take his original plots which are far away from his abadi. He also insists on plot no. 149 and 150. My spot inspection reveals that plot no. 150 was of higher level and chak-holder no. 164 has improved this plot after removing the earth. He has incurred sufficient amount in the improvement. Now the position of plot no. 150 has become good and these objectors want to grab this plot. At the time of chak carvation or at the time of hearing objection under Section 21 (1) these objectors never claimed this plot. THEse objections are based on party factions in the village." The sequence of events onwards are shocking to the judicial conscience. That the dispensation of justice, for which the courts are primarily constituted, could be flouted in such flagrant manner by no less an authority then the Deputy Director of Consolidation is a sad commentary on the exercise of power by one who is expected to act judicially. Siddique after the order dated 8-10-71 filed a revision under Section 48 of the Act. It reads : "Revision under Section 48 of U. P. C. H. Act against the order of Assistant Consolidation Officer in respect of chak no. 127 of village Amirpur, Pargana Kewai, Allahabad, runs on the following amongst other grounsds." The prayer clause read : "It is therefore prayed that the revision be allowed and the order of Assistant Consolidation Officer be set aside and proper and equitable chak be allotted to the applicant." It does not and could not mention any order against which it was directed. The allegation that revision was unaccompanied by any order remains uncontroverted. The only order against which an appeal or revision could be filed was he order passed by the Consolidation Officer on 8-10-71. How could a revision be entertained directly and that also against no order is difficult to comprehend. It leaves one guessing.
(3.) THE last stage of the drama starts with fixation of 26-1-1972 (Republic day) for local inspection. THE notice of this was served on the petitioner, the same day (26-1-72) at 10.30 A.M. THE assertion that Sri Ram Mohan Singh reached at 5.30 P. M. is not admitted but what is stated is interesting that he reached in time. No details have been given nor Siddique has stated the time at which Sri Singh was expected to visit village. THE petitioner's son who appeared before Sri Singh was asked to accept Rs. 100/- as compensation for making improvement on the land (finding of Consolidation Officer) and on his ref usual he was directed to appear on 1-2-72 in court. By now the petitioner grew apprehensive and an application dated 31-1-72 along with an affidavit giving all facts and requesting the Deputy Director not to pass any order without hearing him was filed. THE allegations stand admitted as the filing of the application is not denied. It it stated, "alleged application and affidavit have been moved with incorrect facts." THE allegations in paragraph 40 of the petition are : "That on the date fixed for arguments i. e. 1-2-72 the respondent no. 1 did not hold his Court and on enquiry the pairokar of the petitioners, was Mirzapur and would hear the cases relating to Baraut area, including the petitioner's case, at Baraut on 3-2-1972." Its reply is contained in paragraph 36 of the counter affidavit : "That in reply to the contents of para 40 of the petition it is stated that 1-2-1972 was not the date fixed for argument. THE rest of the allegations in the para under reply are vague inasmuch as the name of the person by whom the pairokar got the alleged information is not given." From these paragraphs it is clear that the revision was still pending. On 3-2-72 as the case was not called till 8 P. M. the petitioners requested for adjournment. It annoyed Sri Singh. At 10 P. M. when the court's work concluded the inquiry about the case brought abuses and threat of arrest and dire consequences by Sri Singh who it is alleged went away saying that his case has been decided. On inspection of the record the petitioner was surprised to find that not only case has been decided but it has been ante-dated as the order was purported to have been passed on 26-1-72. THE petittoner's restoration application was rejected on 15-2-72. In the counter affidavit of Siddique only this much is asserted that as the orders were passed on 26-1-72, the allegations of mala fide were incorrect. Sri Ram Mohan Singh has not appeared or filed any 'counter affidavit although service has been, deemed sufficient, on him in accordance with the Rules of the Court. As he is not personally served I refrain from recording any finding on the serious allegations of mala fide that Sri Singh was hand-in-glove with the opposite party and in trying to help him he not only went out of way but threw the norms and procedure of law to winds.;