BADRI Vs. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF CONSOLIDATION GHAZIPUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) S. N. Srivastava, J. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.

(2.) PETITION in hand is directed against the judgment and order dated 31-3-1999 passed by the Deputy Director Consolidation (Annexure 7 to the petition) by which revision No. 1076 preferred by Kapil Deo was allowed and chaks allotted at the stage of Consolidation Officer between the parties were re- arranged. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the revisional Court has passed orders on the ground that chaks in question were the original holdings of the Respondents 2 and 3 and in consequence, interfered with the arrangement made at the level of Consolidation Officer and re- allocated the same to the respondents and those of the respondents to the petitioners. It is further submitted that from a proposal of C. H. Form No. 23, the finding recorded by the Deputy Director of Consolidation is impaired and wears the taint of perversity. The learned Counsel next submitted that by this Order, Plot Nos. 383, 624 and 625 comprising in the original holding of the petitioners were assigned to respondents and those of the respondents, to the petitioners and therefore, the conclusions arrived at by the Deputy Director, Consolidation are not informed with reasons as to how the demand of the revisionist carried substance. He also assailed the order on the ground that there is not a vestige of finding in vindication of the observation that the order passed by the Settlement Officer Consolidation suffered from the blemish of illegality. In opposition, Sri Aditya Narain learned Counsel appearing for the Opp. parties tried to justify the order stating that it was rightly passed and was in accordance with law. He further tried to whittle down the submissions by stating that the petitioners have been allotted plots in the propinquity of their residential house while the respondents have been assigned chaks far removed their residences and this arrangement has not prejudiced the interest of the petitioners in any way and that merely wrongs done to the respondents have been undone in revision by the Deputy Director of Consolidation. Ultimately, it is submitted that the arrangement made by the Deputy Director Consolidation was strictly in accordance with the provisions as contemplated in Section 19 of the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act.

(3.) IN the conspectus of the above discussion, the petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 31-3- 1999 passed by the Deputy Director Consolidation contained in Annexure 7 to the petition, is quashed. The matter is relegated to the Deputy Director of Consolidation for decision afresh in observance of the mandatory provisions of Section 48 of the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act. Petition allowed. .