- (1.) ASHOK Bhushan, J. Heard Sri Ram Niwas Singh, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri Namwar Singh, learned Counsel appearing for respondent No. 2.
(2.) COUNTER and rejoinder-affidavits have been exchanged. As prayed by Counsel for both the parties, the writ petition is being finally decided. By this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for quashing the order dated 11th March, 2003 passed by Deputy Director of Consolidation, Varanasi. Facts of the case, briefly stated, are; Village Niardih, Pargana Katehar, District Varanasi was taken for Consolidation under the provisions of U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as the Act ). Both, petitioner and respondent No. 2, had original holdings in the village. Original holding of the petitioner consisted of Plot No. 214 (0. 073), (0. 146) and Plot No. 197 ( 0. 073 ). Respondent No. 2 had several plots as original holding in which he had one half share. Original holding of respondent No. 2 consisted of Plots No. 181 (0. 036), 184 (0. 053), 192 (0. 028), 215 (0. 016), 217 (0. 029), 312 (0. 024), 185 (0. 040), 213 (0. 036), 216 (0. 040) and 197 (0. 016 ). The Assistant Consolidation Officer proposed Chak No. 706 to the petitioner consisted of plots Nos. 214, 217, 216 and 225. The Assistant Consolidation Officer proposed respondent No. 2 two chaks, first chak at Plots No. 213 and 214 and second chak at plots No. 177, 178, 179, 180, 181 and 185. Objections under Section 20 of the Act was filed by respondent No. 2 which was decided by Consolidation Officer vide his order dated 10th June, 1999. The Consolidation Officer made changes in the chaks of respondent No. 2 by removing his second chak from plot No. 177 which area was increased at first chak of respondent No. 2 by including plot Nos. 210, 215 and 216. The brother of the petitioner who was given chak on Plot No. 213 etc. was shifted to Plot No. 182. From the changes made by Consolidation Officer, the petitioner stood allotted only one chak consisting of his original plots No. 213 and 216. The plots Nos. 213 and 216 were good quality of land having valuation of 70 and 90 paise respectively whereas other plots No. 181, 184, 185 and 197 were plots of lessor value i. e. , 50 paisa.
(3.) AN appeal was filed by respondent No. 2 against the order of Consolidation Officer praying that respondent No. 2 be given chak on plots No. 213 and 214 and his chak proposed on plot Nos. 210, 215 and 216 be given to the petitioner, Surendra. The Settlement Officer of Consolidation dismissed the appeal of respondent No. 2 holding that appellant-respondent No. 2 was given one chak on his original holding at Plot No. 213 and Plot No. 215 being the original holding of respondent No. 2 if the chak is allotted to respondent No. 2 on plot No. 214, the petitioner who is chak holder No. 706 will be deprived of the benefit of 'rasta'. A revision was filed by respondent No. 2 against the said order which revision was heard alongwith other revisions and was allowed vide order dated 23-11-2000. The Deputy Director of Consolidation allowed the revision and directed for giving chak to respondent No. 2 on the eastern side of plot No. 214 and on western side petitioner's chak was carved. Against the order dated 23rd November, 2000, Writ Petition No. 52427 of 2002 was filed by the petitioner. This Court allowed the writ petition by its order dated 2nd August, 2001 and set aside the order of Deputy Director of Consolidation dated 23rd November, 2000. The case was remanded to the Deputy Director of Consolidation for fresh decision. After the judgment of this Court dated 2nd August, 2001, the Deputy Director of Consolidation has again heard the parties, made a spot inspection and allowed the revision by the order dated 11th March, 2003 against which order the present writ petition has been filed. Learned Counsel for the petitioner challenging the order of Deputy Director of Consolidation made following submissions : (i) The Deputy Director of Consolidation committed error in making modification in the chak of the petitioner on the ground that respondent No. 2 has his private source of irrigation over plot No. 224 whereas Plot No. 224 being out of consolidation the said claim was irrelevant and the Deputy Director of Consolidation allowed the revision on irrelevant consideration. (ii) The Deputy Director of Consolidation in allowing the revision has deprived the petitioner facility of road existing towards east of Plot No. 214, the land adjoining to the said road/rasta was commercial value and the petitioner was entitled for chak on the road side and the Assistant Consolidation Officer has rightly given chak to the petitioner on his original holding at Plot No. 214 taking into such consideration which was also affirmed by Settlement Officer of Consolidation by dismissing the appeal filed by respondent No. 2. (iii) The Deputy Director of Consolidation had no jurisdiction to pass order in exercise of jurisdiction under Section 48 of the Act without pointing out any illegality, incorrectness or impropriety in the orders passed by subordinate Consolidation Courts. (iv) The Deputy Director of Consolidation committed error in not considering the claim of the petitioner while allowing the revision filed by the petitioner. (v) The Deputy Director of Consolidation has proceeded to decide the revision on only one consideration as to whether allotment of chak could be made on the basis of road or 'nala' and he has not considered other aspects of the case.;