Shitla Prasad Srivastava, J. - (1.) This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioners quashing the order dated 24.9.1994 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Meerut in Revision No. 617 of 1991.
(2.) The brief facts, as stated in the petition, are that the petitioners were proposed Chak No. 192 and the respondent No. 2. Dharam Singh, was proposed Chak No. 503 during the preparation of Provisional Consolidation Scheme under the Consolidation of Holdings Act-Petitioner's holdings consist of Plots No. 3605, 3606, 3607, 3608, 3609, 3610, 3611 and 3613. According to the petitioners, the exchange ratio of these plots was 100 paise per hectare. It is stated by the petitioners that these plots, mentioned above. were adjacent to the petitioners' residential house and their ghar was in plot No. 3600. The share of the petitioners was 1/3 in the aforesaid plots. It is further stated that the respondent No. 2, Dharam Singh, had 1/3 share in the plots mentioned above except the ghar, i.e., plot No. 3600. It is further stated by the petitioners that the share of Beg Raj, father of respondent No. 2, was 1/3 in the aforesaid plots and after the death of his father, it devolved upon his four brothers, namely, Babu, Bhagwat, Janam Singh and respondent No. 2. Therefore, the share of the petitioners is only 1/12 in the aforesaid plots. Bhagwat Singh, one of the brother of the respondent No. 2, filed an objection under Section 20 of the aforesaid Act. On his objection, the entire chak, as proposed by the Assistant Consolidation Officer was disturbed. The Consolidation Officer did not propose to allot any plot to the petitioners of 100 paise exchange ratio nor any chak was given to the petitioners near abadi. The petitioners filed an appeal against the order of the Consolidation Officer. The Settlement Officer. Consolidation modified the order of the Consolidation Officer and allotted plot No. 3613 of 100 paise per hectare exchange ratio. Although the share of the petitioners at this place was about 72 paise of valuation but the petitioners were not given 100 paise valuation or 90 paise valuation. The respondent No. 2, Dharam Singh, filed a revision against the order of the Settlement Officer. Consolidation. The Deputy Director of Consolidation excluded single plot of 100 paise exchange ratio allotted to the petitioners by the Settlement Officer, Consolidation, i.e., plot No. 3613 and took away land of more than 22 paise valuation out of his chak on plot Nos. 3770, 3768, etc. and in lieu of these plots, the Deputy Director of Consolidation, allotted land of 44.853 paise valuation at plot Nos. 311, 314, 315, 316, 317, etc. Two revisions were filed. One by Dharam Singh against Khacheru Singh, father of the petitioners and other by Brahma Singh against Madan Singh and these two revisions were decided by common judgment. The petitioners have challenged this order of the Dy. Director of Consolidation by means of the present writ petition.
(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioners has urged that petitioner's valuation in plot Nos. 313 and 314 was only of 15 paise. But as plots No. 1920 and 2098 were also near to plot Nos. 313 and 314 and the petitioner held land of 40 paise valuation in these plots, therefore, the Deputy Director of Consolidation allotted land of 45 paise valuation in plot Nos. 313 and 314, which is neither legal nor equitable. It has been urged that the distance between plot Nos. 2099, 2098, 2100 and 1900 are not nearer to plot Nos. 313 and 314 rather they arc at a distance of about 2 Kms. from plot Nos. 313 and 314. Therefore, the finding recorded by the Deputy Director of Consolidation is perverse. Further argument of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that plot No. 1920 does not belong to the petitioners and total valuation of plot Nos. 2098, 2099, 1900 and 1921 is only 17.46 paise valuation. In this way also the finding given by the Deputy Director of Consolidation is incorrect. Learned counsel for the petitioners has further urged that when the respondent No. 2 has claimed that out of his chak at plot Nos. 313 and 314 land of 22 paise valuation should be allotted to the petitioners in lieu of equal valuation out of plot Nos. 3613 and 3614 to be included in his chak then the Deputy Director of Consolidation committed mistake in adjusting the chak of the petitioners according to the valuation. The ultimate argument of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the petitioners have been deprived of their entire land of 100 paise and 90 paise exchange ratio near their abadi, which is arbitrary and inquitable.;