RAJARAM D Vs. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF CONSOLIDATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the parties and also perused the record of the case.

(2.) By means of this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioner (since deceased) prayed for issuance of a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated 30.7.1988 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Jaunpur in the proceedings under Section 20/21 of the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act (for short "the Act").

(3.) The relevant facts of the case giving rise to present petition, in brief, are that respondent Nos, 2 to 6 who were chak-holders of Chak Nos. 38, 39 and 40, filed objections before the Consolidation Officer on receipt of provisional consolidation scheme regarding valuation of the land allotted to them in their chaks. It was claimed that the valuation of the land allotted to them was more than as prescribed under the rules. Therefore, they have prayed that the valuation of the land allotted to them should be reduced. The objection filed by the contesting respondents was opposed by the petitioner. The Consolidation Officer after due notice and in presence of the parties made the local inspection of the land in dispute and prepared an inspection note. Thereafter, hearing the parties dismissed the objection filed by the respondents by his judgment and order dated 27.2.1986, holding that the proper valuation was assigned to the disputed plots. Challenging the validity of the said order passed by the Consolidation Officer, three appeals were filed by the respondents. The Settlement Officer, Consolidation after perusing the material on record and after hearing the parties, came to the conclusion that the valuation of the land in dispute was Just and proper and that the order passed by the Consolidation Officer was not to be interfered with. Having recorded the said findings, the appeals were dismissed by his judgment and order dated 19.1.1987 by the Settlement Officer, Consolidation. Respondents thereafter preferred three revisions under Section 48 of the Act. The Deputy Director of Consolidation after hearing the parties and after perusing the material on record, came to the conclusion that looking from the point of view of the quality and the situation of the land, the valuation of some of the plots in question was not proper. He has, therefore, revalued some of the plots in accordance with law and allowed the revision in part by his judgment and order dated 30.7.1988, hence the present petition.