SALIL KUMAR RAI,J. - (1.) List has been revised. No one has put in appearance on behalf of the respondents.
(2.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.
(3.) The facts relevant to decide the present writ petition are that Plot No. 1676 was the original holding of the petitioner. Petitioner had a tube-well on the said plot. Petitioner is Chak Holder No. 715, respondent No. 3 is Chak Holder No. 649 and respondent Nos. 4 to 8 are the Chak Holder No. 609. During the consolidation proceedings in the village, the petitioner, till the stage of Settlement Officer of Consolidation (hereinafter referred to as, 'S.O.C.'), was allotted a chak on Plot No. 1676 which contained his tube-well, i.e., his private source of irrigation. However, in a revision filed by respondent No. 3 and the predecessor in interest of respondent Nos. 4 to 8, the Deputy Director of Consolidation (hereinafter referred to as, 'D.D.C.'), through his order dated 19.10.1996 amended the allotments made till the stage of S.O.C. and allotted a chak to respondent No. 3 on Plot No. 1676, which contained the private source of irrigation of the petitioner. Petitioner filed an application for recall of the order dated 19.10.1996 before the D.D.C. and the D.D.C. vide his order dated 22.1.1997 dismissed the said recall application. The orders dated 19.10.1996 and 22.1.1997 passed by the D.D.C. were challenged by the petitioner in this Court through Writ Petition No. 8551/1997. In his orders dated 19.10.1996 and 22.1.1997, the D.D.C. had not referred to the fact that the petitioner had his tube-well on Plot No. 1676. Writ Petition No. 8551/1997 was dismissed by this Court vide its order dated 12.3.1997. However, the Court taking cognizance of the fact that in his orders dated 19.10.1996 and 22.1.1997 the D.D.C. while allotting Plot No. 1676 to respondent No. 3, i.e., the Chak Holder No. 649 had not referred to the existence of a tube-well on the Plot, permitted the petitioner to raise the controversy regarding the tube-well before the D.D.C. and also directed that in case an application was filed by the petitioner, the same shall be decided in accordance with law. The relevant portion of the order dated 12.3.1997 passed by this Court is reproduced below :- "Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that after investing substantial money, the petitioner has installed a Tubewell in his Chak. If the order passed by the Dy. Director of Consolidation is given effect to, he shall be deprived of the said Tubewell and shall suffer irreparable loss. In the order passed by the Dy. Director of Consolidation there is no reference of any Tubewell. However, the petitioner is permitted to raise the controversy regarding Tubewell before the Dy. Director of Consolidation. If any application with respect to the Tubewell in question is filed, the same shall be decided in accordance with law by the respondent No. 1. No case for interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is made out. Subject to what has been stated above, the writ petition fails and is dismissed in limine".;