ASHARAM Vs. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF CONSOLIDATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Subject-matter of impugnment in the present petition is judgment dated 17.12.2002 passed by the Deputy Director, Consolidation thereby revision preferred by the respondent No. 2 was allowed to the detriment of the petitioners.

(2.) The controversy in the present petition has its genesis in plot No. 491 which, it is alleged, was the original holding of the petitioners on which petitioner No. 1 installed the tube-well, the only source of irrigation to their crops. The petitioners were sought to be divested of their original holding in the provisional scheme formulated by the Assistant Consolidation Officer as a result of which, they invoked the procedure of Section 20 of the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act and filed objections. It is submitted by the petitioners that point was brought home to the Consolidation Officer but in the ultimate analysis, his decision leaned in favour of the respondent No. 2. Consequent upon this, the petitioners went up in appeal before the Settlement Officer, Consolidation who by means of his order dated 14.11.2002 restored his tube-well in his original holding. At this stage, the respondent No. 2 preferred a revision before the Deputy Director, Consolidation, who by means of his order dated 17.12.2002, upturned the order of the Settlement Officer, Consolidation and upheld the arrangement made at the level of the Consolidation Officer.

(3.) I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. Sri Hari Om Khare, learned counsel for the contesting opposite party proposed not to file counter-affidavit and sought this Court to dispense with the requirement of filing counter-affidavit and to decide the petition finally. The learned counsel for the petitioners did not demur to it and hence, the petition is disposed of finally on the basis of the facts on record and upon regard being had to the submissions canvassed across the bar.