RADHEY Vs. D D C

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Shri Namwar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner.

(2.) The writ petition arises out of proceedings for allotment of chaks and is directed against the order passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation on 17.02.1989 whereby the revisions filed by the contesting respondents have been allowed, modifying the chaks of the petitioner.

(3.) The contention of the respondent in the revision was that he had been allotted three chaks, although he is a small tenure holder. The third chak allotted on plot nos. 609 and 610, was an udan chak and, therefore, it was prayed in the revision that the udan chak be abolished and only two chaks be proposed to them. This relief has been granted by the Deputy Director of Consolidation and in the process the petitioners have been allotted a third chak on plot nos. 609 and 610 on the reasoning that they were possessed of original holdings in the vicinity. The contention, therefore, is that since the parties were joint tenure holders, their original holdings were the same plots and, therefore, the Deputy Director of Consolidation has adopted double standards. The petitioners are similarly aggrieved as the respondent was, prior to the passing of the impugned order. Even the petitioners are small tenure holders who had been proposed two chaks, but by the order impugned they have now been allotted three chaks, the third being an udan chak. It is also submitted that the plot nos. 609 and 610 that have been proposed to the petitioners are inferior quality land. Further, reliance has been placed on the averment contained in paragraph 17 of the writ petition, wherein a categorical statement has been made that the observation of the Deputy Director of Consolidation that the petitioners were possessed of land in the vicinity of plot nos. 609 and 610 is factually incorrect.