BADRI PRASAD SINGH Vs. D.D.C.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri S.K. Mehrotra, learned counsel for petitioner and Sri R.C. Srivastava, learned counsel for opposite party No.2, Ram Surat. No one appeared on behalf of other opposite parties.

(2.) This writ petition arises out of consolidation proceedings pertaining to chak carvation. Order dated 17.09.1992 passed by D.D.C. Faizabad in Revisions No.2358, Ram Prasad and others Vs. Finku and others, No.2432, Dularey Vs. Ram Surat and others, No.2644, Ram Surat Vs. Ramjan and others has been challenged through this writ petition.

(3.) In the impugned order in respect of revision filed by opposite party No.2, Ram Surat (revision No.2644), it has been observed that he was chakdar No.180 and his grievance was that through order challenged by him in the revision shape of his chak had become bad, hence he was in a loss and chakdar No.177, who had been given land adjacent to his chak should be adjusted somewhere else so that his (Ram Surat's) chak could become rectangular. The revisional court set aside the order of the S.O.C. in respect of opposite party No.2 and allowed his revision only and only on the ground that his demand was justified and he should be granted rectangular chak. Revisions cannot be allowed just to fulfil the demand of someone. Moreover, under consolidation it is not possible to provide perfect rectangular chaks to each and every one. Even after the judgment of the D.D.C. chak of opposite party No.2 is not perfectly rectangular. Through the impugned order, petitioner has not been granted chak on his original holding. Petitioner is tenure holder No.99. His original holdings are 374 exclusive and 73, 85, 49 co-tenancy. Accordingly, writ petition deserves to be allowed.