INDRA PAL Vs. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF CONSOLIDATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Whether a tenure holder can be entitled co an area in the vicinity equal to the valuation of the plat originally held by him there in view of the provisions of Section 19(1)(g) of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1954 (Compendiously the Act) is the short question for considsiation.

(2.) This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking relief of a writ of Certiorari quashing the order dated 30-1-92 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Jaunpur, allowing the Revision No. 2348/445 filed by the Respondent and dismissing the Revision No. 2351/463 filed by the Petitioner and also quashing partially the order of Assistant Settlement Officer of Consolidation dated April 7, 1990 on 4th of September, 1992, this petition was listed for hearing and the Petitioner's learned Counsel Sri Here Krishna Misra, was heard on merits. It was suggested by both learned Counsel that counter, Rejoinder Affidavits have been filed, hence even though petition was not admitted but that may be decided on merits. After hearing the learned Counsel for parties, petition was dismissed on 4th of September, 1992, but before the order could be signed Sri Hare Krishna Misra, learned Counsel for the Petitioner, made a prayer that it may be taken up again and he may be beard again, just with a view to do complete justice, this request was accepted and petition was listed for hearing on 13-10-1992, but no body appeared for Petitioners hence I have no option but to dismiss the petition in default. Today petition was listed for orders and in the ends of justice order dated 13-10-92 was recalled the petition was restored to its original number.

(3.) When the petition was listed today. Sri Sankatha Rai appeared for Petitioner and in his usual style of lenghthy and painstaking arguments, pressed all relevant points with all clearity at his command. He contended that Petitioners were not responsible far committing forgery in respect of the valuation of plot No. 259, and Petitioners were not heard, nor any area could have been given to Respondents Nos. 3 and 4 near their house, as they did not hold any original holding there Reliance was placed on Jeet Narain v. Deputy Director of Consolidation,1983 AllLJ 998. It was also urged that no reasons, were given by the Deputy Director of Consolidation in the impugned order.