PALTU, SON OF SUKHAN Vs. DEPUTY DIRECTOR, CONSOLIDATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PC : By means of this Writ Petition, the petitioner has challenged the judgment and order dated 23 -1 -1990 passed by the respondent no.1 Joint Director of Consolidation, Meerut, camp - Roorkee, passed in Revision No. 540, Simru Vs. Paltu and others, under Section 48 of the Consolidation of Holdings Act, whereby the learned Director of Consolidation allowed the revision, set aside the order dated 31 -8 -1988, passed by the Assistant Settlement Officer and ordered maintenance of Chaks in accordance with the directions given therein.

(2.) BRIEF facts giving rise to the present Writ Petition are that during the consolidation operations before the Assistant Consolidation Officer, original respondent no.2 Simru filed his objection dated 28 -3 -1988 on the ground that his Chak be allotted over the plot no. 391/1 and 155 i.e. near the plot no. 378/1 over which there is irrigation facility. The Consolidation Officer after considering the objection recorded a finding that the land, which was allotted to the respondent no.2 is on his original holding and his Chak was rightly allotted in accordance with the provisions of the Consolidation of Holdings Act (for short the Act) and ultimately rejected the objection of the respondent no.2 vide judgment and order dated 25 -6 -1988. Aggrieved by the order of the Consolidation Officer dated 25 -6 -1988, the respondent no.2 preferred an appeal before the Settlement Officer Consolidation seeking that plot nos. 155 and 154 be allotted in place of plot no. 38. The appeal was allowed vide judgment and order dated 31 -8 -1988. According to the petitioner, although the prayer of the respondent no.2 was accepted by the Settlement Officer Consolidation, still he challenged that order before the Joint Director of Consolidation in revision under the provisions of Section 48 of the Act. In that revision, the respondent no.2 alleged that the total area of the original holding in his possession was 7 -11 -12 but he was allotted the area to the extent of 5 Bigha, 3 Biswa only, whereas the area of the petitioner's holding was 5 -5 -0 but he was allotted the Chaks of total area measuring 11 Bigha, 13 Biswa and 8 biswans, i.e. more than 100% of the total area. The petitioner has contended that the revisional court without considering the case of the petitioner, allowed the revision preferred by the respondent no.2 and the plots of the petitioner were taken out and in its place the plots of respondent no.2, namely plot no. 40, 153 and 154 measuring 11/2(12 Biswa) were allotted to the petitioner vide judgment and order dated 23 -1 -1990.

(3.) IT has been contended on behalf of the petitioner that the revisional court committed manifest error inasmuch as the revision filed by the respondent no.2 was not maintainable and the case of the petitioner was not at all taken into account. It was further contended that there was no justification for the respondent no.1 to allow the revision preferred by the respondent no.2.