- (1.) Heard Shri Tripathi B.G. Bhai, learned counsel for the petitioners and Shri Dinesh Pathak, learned counsel for respondent Nos. 2 and 3.
(2.) Plot No. 1513 is the original holding of the petitioners. Aggrieved by the arrangement of chaks till the stage of Consolidation Officer (hereinafter referred to as, 'C.O.'), petitioners and respondent Nos. 2 and 3 filed Appeal Nos. 2125, 2206 and 3348 under Section 21(2) of the Uttar Pradesh Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as, 'Act, 1953'). Appeal No. 2206 was filed by respondent No. 2 claiming a chak on Plot No. 1513 on the ground that it was infront of her House. Appeal No. 2125 filed by the petitioners was allowed by the Settlement Officer of Consolidation (hereinafter referred to as, 'S.O.C') vide his order dated 6.6.1992 and Appeal Nos. 2206 and 3348 were dismissed by the S.O.C. Till the stage of S.O.C., the petitioners retained a chak on Plot No. 1513. It is evident from the order dated 6.6.1992 dismissing Appeal No. 2206 that before deciding the aforesaid appeal, the S.O.C. had inspected the plots of the parties. Aggrieved, the respondent No. 3 filed Revision Nos. 605, 606 and 224 while respondent No. 2 filed Revision No. 607 before the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Siddharth Nagar, i.e., respondent No. 1 (hereinafter referred to as, 'D.D.C.') under Section 48 of the Act, 1953. The D.D.C. vide his order dated 29.3.1993 allowed the said revisions and rearranged the chaks between the petitioners and respondent Nos. 2 and 3. The chaks allotted to the petitioners on Plot No. 1513 till the stage of the S.O.C. has been withdrawn and in lieu thereof the petitioners have been granted a chak of equal value on Plot Nos. 1196 and 1206 which had been allotted to respondent No. 3 till the stage of the S.O.C. and the respondent No. 2 has been allotted a chak on Plot No. 1513 on the ground that it would be convenient to respondent No. 2 as the said plot was located infront of her house. The order dated 29.3.1993 has been challenged in the present writ petition.
(3.) It has been argued by the counsel for the petitioners that by the order dated 29.3.1993 the area allotted to the petitioners till the stage of the S.O.C. has been considerably reduced and no valid reasons have been given in the order dated 29.3.1993 for reducing the area of the petitioners. It has been argued that the order dated 29.3.1993 suffers from non-application of mind and has been passed mechanically and is therefore liable to be set aside. It was further argued that Plot No. 1513 was the original holding of the petitioners and therefore could not have been allotted to respondent No. 2 only on ground of her convenience. It was also argued that the petitioners were not impleaded as opposite parties in Revision No. 607 filed by respondent No. 2, and therefore, their chaks could not have been altered at the instance of respondent No. 2 as the petitioners were not issued any notice in the said case and therefore the order dated 29.3.1993 passed by the D.D.C. withdrawing Plot No. 1513 from the chak of the petitioners is violative of principles of natural justice and Section 48 of the Act, 1953. It was argued that for the aforesaid reasons the order dated 29.3.1993 passed by the D.D.C. is contrary to law and is liable to be set aside.;