GOMTI RAM Vs. CHOWDHARY AND OTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the parties. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that the Deputy Director of Consolidation passed the impugned order without applying his mind and carving out a new case in favour of contesting respondent and did not balance the equity between the parties. He further contended that the Deputy Director of Consolidation did not have any power to give fresh finding of fact in exercise of his revisional jurisdiction. In support of these contentions 1 he relied upon a number of decisions.

(2.) In the instant case admittedly both the parties are co-tenure holders being real brothers. By he impugned order just with a view to balance equity between the parties, the Deputy Director of Consolidation has given certain area of plot No. 157 to the contesting respondent also. In view of this Court's decision in Bahadur Singh Vs. Deputy Director of Consolidation and others, 1981 (2) RD 112. where it has been held that equity may be adjusted among the tenure holders especially cotenure holders by the Deputy Director of Consolidation in exercise of his revisional jurisdiction, the impugned order passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation is perfectly correct and legal and requires no interference by this Court.

(3.) Learned counsel for petitioner also contended making reference to the Sanshodhan Talika that entire area of plot No 157 has been given to the contesting respondent but this argument too is not acceptable on the own showing of the petitioner that in the writ petition nowhere it has been stated that entire area of plot No. 157 has been given to the contesting respondent or the petitioner has not been given any area of plot No. 157.