B.L. Yadav, J. - (1.) Counter and rejoinder affidavits have been exchanged in this case therefore learned counsel for the parties agreed that this case may be decided on merits.
(2.) By present petition under Article 226 of the constitution impugned judgement dated 9th June 1989 passed in revision under Section 48 of the U.P. consolidation of Holdings Act (for short the Act) is sought to be quashed by issuing a writ of Certiorari.
(3.) It appears that in proceedings under Section 21 of the Act valuation of plot no. 1734 was changed and in revision objection was taken by the respondent no. 3 that valuation cannot be changed in proceedings under Section 21 of the Act. The reliance was placed on Ram Nihor v. D.D.C. & others (1983 RD 1) before Deputy Director of Consolidation, in which it was held that the objections about the valuation may not be taken at the stage of Section 21 rather it must be taken at the stage of Section 9-A of the Act otherwise Section 11-A would operate as a bar. Relying upon that case revision was allowed. However, in the operative portion without assigning reason and without considering case of respective parties about convenience or otherwise in respect of adjustment of the chak, change in the chak has been directed to be carried out.;