RISAL SINGH Vs. TEJPAL AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel who appears for the respondents.

(2.) Challenge in this petition is the judgment of the Deputy Director of Consolidation dated 27th Sept., 1979 (Annexure-4 to the writ petition) by which revision filed by the respondent No. 1 has been allowed and the petitioner was affected.

(3.) Proceedings in which orders have been passed are under Sec. 20 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act which relates to the adjustment of chaks. Petitioner is chak holder of Plot No. 157 and respondent No. 1 is chak holder of Plot No. 68. From the arguments and from the record also it appears that up to the stage of Settlement Officer Consolidation chak of the petitioner remained intact i.e. only one in number. Chak of respondent No. 1 was also one in number. Settlement Officer Consolidation while dismissing the appeal of the respondent No. 1 and maintaining the adjustment made by the Consolidation Officer has given a finding that respondent No. 1 has total area 04-18-0 in lieu thereof he has been allotted area of 04-17-0 Settlement Officer Consolidation has also given finding that spot was inspected and it was found that the land given to the appellant i.e. present respondent No. 1 in any manner cannot be said to be of bad quality and thus it was found that no change is required. Deputy Director of Consolidation has allowed the revision by judgment dated 27.9.1979 on account of which now it is claimed that petitioner has been given two chaks in place of one. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that judgment of the Deputy Director of Consolidation is clearly faulty as he has not considered the hardship which has occasioned to the petitioner. It is further submitted that till the stage of Settlement Officer Consolidation petitioner was given one chak and therefore although allotment of second chak can be said to be permissible but some strong reason is to be given in the order for disturbing the adjustment of two stages. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that Deputy Director of Consolidation being last Court in the matter of adjustment of chaks, on comparative consideration has made equitable adjustment to which no prejudice has been demonstrated and therefore, it may not be a case for interference by this Court.