Shishir Kumar - (1.) HEARD learned counsel for petitioner, learned counsel for respondents and learned standing counsel.
(2.) THIS writ petition has been filed for quashing the order dated 1.12.1991 (Annexure-9 to writ petition) passed by respondent No. 1. Further, order dated 5.8.1987 (Annexure-4 to writ petition) passed by respondent No. 2 and order dated 20.10.1986 (Annexure-1 to writ petition) passed by respondent No. 3. It appears that petitioner is a sole tenant of original plot No. 88 area 0.38 acre situated on G. T. Road and adjoining to U. P. Tourist Bunglow. The plot is surrounded by pucca boundary wall. During consolidation operation, petitioner was assured that he will be given the said plot. An objection to that effect was filed by petitioner under Section 20 of the Act, but the said objection was rejected vide its order dated 20.10.1986 by a non-speaking and non-reasoned order. Then petitioner filed an appeal. Appellate court though has held that original holding of petitioner is plot No. 88, therefore, that particular plot be allotted according to Form 23 but at the time of amendment, only 0.06 acre was allotted in plot No. 88 and similar area has been allotted to respondents though it does not belong to respondents. Petitioner has also submitted an application for spot inspection but that was not done. Aggrieved by aforesaid order, petitioner filed a revision. Revisional court in spite of fact that petitioner has made an application for spot inspection and this fact has been mentioned by revisional court, has held that there is no necessity to increase the area according to valuation and the area allotted during consolidation operation, is correct. Though, nothing has been recorded by Deputy Director of Consolidation that from gata No. 88 some area has been reduced and petitioner has been adjusted in his original holding at gata No. 94. In such situation, there is no necessity to any amendment. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that consolidation authorities are bound to record reason, if they refuse, demand made by a person to allot land of his original holding, which stood by the road side. A reasoned order to that effect be passed by not accepting the request and demand made by the affected person. In the present case also, petitioner has made an application for spot inspection before the appellate court as well as before the revisional court but without making spot inspection, claim of petitioner has been rejected. Reliance has been placed upon a judgment of this Court in Raja Ram (Dead) through L.Rs. v. Deputy Director of Consolidation, Mirzapur and others, 2006 (101) RD 671 : 2007 (1) AWC 964. Placing reliance upon the aforesaid judgment learned counsel for petitioner has relied upon para 6 of the said judgment. The same is quoted below : "6. Reliance has been placed on various decisions of this Court. Chhedi Lal v. Deputy Director of Consolidation and others. This Court had ruled that the guidelines contained in the Government order dated 26.5.1981 are to be strictly adhered to as it has been enacted in confirmation and to give effect to the intention of the Act and the provisions of Section 19. I have perused the said Government order and on a close examination of the orders of the consolidation authorities, impugned in the writ petition, I am satisfied that the orders have not been passed in accordance with law and without considering the specific objection. This Court had set aside the order of the consolidation authorities on the ground that no reasons were recorded for declining to allot the area demanded by the petitioner of his original holding, which stood by the road side. In absence of any valid reason to decline the request of the petitioner, the order was held to be unsustainable in law and consequently was set aside. In another writ petition, Nathunee and others v. Deputy Director of Consolidation, Ghazipur and another, the Court had quashed the order of the Consolidation authority as the impugned orders in the said writ petition were without application of mind and without assigning any appropriate reason and considering the comparative hardship, which was to be faced by the parties. The authorities having failed to take into consideration this aspect, the order stood vitiated in law. Similar view has been expressed in the case of Rajendra Singh and others v. Deputy Director of Consolidation and others. For a ready reference, paragraph 8 of the said judgment is quoted below : "A perusal of the impugned order of the Deputy Director of Consolidation goes to show that no reason has been recorded by the Deputy Director of Consolidation. The only reason recorded for allowing the revision is that claim made by the revisionists (respondents herein) is genuine. Apart from that there is no discussion by the Deputy Director of Consolidation about the claim of the parties nor any other reason has been given. The specific objection of the petitioners that order of Settlement Officer, Consolidation is based on the basis of compromise between the parties, though has been noted by the Deputy Director of Consolidation but no finding has been returned on the said issue. It was incumbent upon him to have considered the fact whether the order of the Settlement Officer, Consolidation was based on compromise between the parties or not. He was also required to consider the case of the petitioners before reaching to any conclusion. A perusal of the judgment also indicates that no spot inspection was done by the Deputy Director of Consolidation. The allegation of the contesting respondents that they have been allotted a multi-cornered chak could have been easily verified by the Deputy Director of Consolidation by making a spot inspection which he failed to do so."
(3.) FURTHER decision has been relied upon by learned counsel for petitioner in Rajendra Prasad Shukla v. Deputy Director of Consolidation, 1996 (Supp) RD 559. It has been held that in case an application for spot inspection is made, it is incumbent on the part of the consolidation authority to make an spot inspection. If that has not been done, the order is liable to be quashed. Placing reliance upon the aforesaid judgment learned counsel for petitioner submits that spot inspection by consolidation authorities is must in case application has been filed. If the spot inspection has not been made that is breach of universal principles and in violation of Section 21 (3) and Rule 24 (d) of the Act. In such situation, learned counsel for petitioner submits that orders passed by respondents is liable to be quashed. After hearing learned counsel for parties and after perusal of record, it is clear that original holding of petitioner was gata No. 88 and from perusal of Form 23, it is clear that total areas was 0.38 acre. Admittedly that gata number is on the main road and therefore, if there was a demand by petitioner, to that effect to allot major portion of that original holding that should have been considered by the consolidation authorities. Though the settlement officer (consolidation) in the appeal has observed such and has given a finding but in spite of the aforesaid fact, has given only 0.06 acres on the gata No. 88. The Deputy Director of Consolidation in spite of application submitted by petitioner for spot inspection regarding verification has rejected the claim of petitioner and has not made any spot inspection.;