SARASWATI VIDYA MANDIR, ATTARRA, BANDA AND ANOTHER Vs. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF CONSOLIDATION, ALLAHABAD, CAMP AT BANDA AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenge in this petition is the judgment of Deputy Director of Consolidation dated 21.3.2001 by which, revision filed by the opposite party has been allowed.

(2.) The proceedings are under Sec. 20 of UP CH Act which relates to allotment of chak between the parties. Needless to say that both parties can never be satisfied as it is not possible to satisfy both parties in its entirety and therefore, the concern of the Court should be that whether the petitioner has suffered any prejudice calling for interference or not. So far as case in hand is conceded, bone of contention appears to be in respect to plot No. 2152 and 2153 in the chaks of parties. The Consolidation Officer rejected objection of the opposite part' upon which appeal was filed by the opposite party. The Settlement Officer Consolidation also dismissed appeal and thereafter, revision was filed which was allowed.

(3.) After hearing learned Counsel for the parties and on perusal of the judgment of appellate authority, it is clear that he has dismissed the appeal filed by opposite party by recording finding that all the three chaks are on original plot and so far plot No. 2153 is concerned, although in that plot he has one third share out of 74 decimal whereas, he has already been given 1.33 decimal and thus, he is already in beneficial position On the finding record by the Courts below, it appears that plot No. 2153 is by side of Allahabad-Banda Road and therefore, that has great potential value and thus allotment is to be managed according to share in their respective proportion as the parties have their land on that place On perusal of CH Form 23 of both parties in respect to plot No. 2152 and 2153 it is clear that the Deputy Director of Consolidation has not noticed rival claim of parties in the light of land so possessed by them. The submission of learned Counsel for the respondent is that he has boring and well over plot No. 2153 Although this has been noticed but as the Deputy Director of Consolidation has not made any spot inspection (sic) it cannot be said that further land which has- been given to the opposite party in plot No. 2153 is at the place where his well and boring is situated. It appears that the revisional Court has allowed the revision on just mere asking of revisionist. It was the concern of revisional Court to have made spot inspection. On the facts of present case as equity was to be balanced by keeping in mind the spot situation and respective rights of parties in the light of road, well and boring as claimed. Thus, this Court is satisfied that arrangement made by two Courts below have been reversed by the Revisional Court in a cursoy manner without examining the relevant aspects.