BABU Vs. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF CONSOLIDATION AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY means of this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the judgment of the Deputy Director of Consolidation dated 30.12.1982 which revision filed by Ram Pal Singh Respondent No. 2 has been allowed. Sri Rajendra Kumar and K.S. Chauhan, learned advocate who appeared in the connected writ petition have been, heard in support of both writ petitions and Sri Manphool Singh, learned Counsel has been heard in opposition. Learned Counsel for the parties submitted various factual aspects in respect to their entitlement over particular land on account of various kind of convenience. Learned Counsel for the parties submitted that they are claiming on the basis of their original holding, their private source of irrigation and other ground. There appears to be no dispute about the fact that both writ petitioners have been disturbed for the first time at the stage of Revisional Court. Needless to say that in the matter of adjustment of chak both parties can never be satisfied as every body, wants chak according to his own convenience and thus it is the Revisional Court who has to adjust equity in the light of position on the spot. In the event, adjustment has been made by Revisional Court by assigning reason for accepting claim of a party and negativing claim of other party, then probably this Court may not be in a position to re -examine the matter in the writ petition. But in a case where the judgment of Revisional Court is silent and no reason has been assigned for disturbing chak of a party, whose chak remained in tact up to the stage of Settlement Officer Consolidation, then this Court has to interfere and is to ask Revisional Court to again take fresh decision. So far as case in hand is concerned, perusal of judgment of Revisional Court will reveal that so far chak holder No. 84 namely Natthu is concerned, only in last line of judgment, it is mentioned that his chak No. 84 is also being affected. So far petitioner Babu Ram chak holder of 109 is concerned, also no reason has been given by the Assistant Deputy Director of Consolidation to disturb him. In view of aforesaid, this Court is of the view that the judgment of Revisional Court is non -speaking, arbitrary for the simple reason that claim/hardship of petitioners have not been taken into account and there is no comparative assessment in respect to claim of respondent No. 2 qua petitioner and Natthu Singh. It is for the Revisional Court to take appropriate decision after considering the matter in accordance with law.

(2.) ACCORDINGLY , for the reason recorded above, this petition succeeds and is allowed. The impugned judgment of Revisional Court dated 30.12.1982 is quashed. The matter is sent back to the concerned Revisional Court to decide it afresh in accordance with law, after giving adequate opportunity of hearing to the parties, preferably within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order from either of parties. It is made clear that both parties have undertaken before this Court not to take any adjournment unless it is required for very compelling reason and thus this will be kept in the mind by Revisional Court.