BECHAN SINGH Vs. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF CONSOLIDATION BALLIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is directed against the order dated 30 -8 -74 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation and the order dated 20 -3 -72 passed by the Assistant Settlement Officer Consolidation, in proceedings under Section 20 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The Petitioner has prayed for a writ of Certiorari quashing these orders on the ground that his grievances about the adjustment of Chaks have not been considered either by the Assistant Settlement Officer Consolidation or by the Deputy Director of Consolidation.

(2.) I have heard the counsel for the parties. It has been urged by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner that the Deputy Director of Consolidation being the last court of fact, has not considered the grievances of the Petitioner and his order is so cryptic that it does not contain any reason as to why the revision of the Petitioner was being dismissed. He further urged that by a perusal of the order of the Deputy Director of Consolidation it appears that he has disposed of the revision filed by Keshav Singh and just incidentally he has made a reference about the revision tiled by Bechan Singh, the present Petitioner. According to him the order of the Deputy Director of Consolidation cannot be sustained. Sri A. Kathore, appearing for the Respondents, on the other hand, urged that the order of the Deputy Director of Consolidation is perfectly correct containing reasons and by his order it does appear that the grievances of both the parties have been heard.

(3.) I am of the view that the allotment of Chak has to be made consistent with the provisions contained in Section 19 of the Act. The principles are that every tenure holder should be allotted compact area at the place where he holds largest part of his holding, and next is that the tenure holder, as far as possible, should be allotted the plot on which exists his private source of irrigation or any other improvement together with the area in the vicinity equal to the valuation of the plot originally held by him and that every tenure holder, as far as possible, would be allotted Chak in conformity with the process of rectangulation. The area as held by any tenure holder prior to the start of consolidation proceedings are relevant only to ascertain whether the area allotted to the tenure holder varies by more than 25% or not as contained in the first proviso to Section 19 of the Act and in the instant case it appears that the Deputy Director of Consolidation was justifying the order passed by the Assistant Settlement Officer Consolidation just on the basis that there was no material or noticeable change in the area of the Petitioner held by him prior to the start of consolidation operation, i.e. an area of 13.25 acre, whereas after the allotment as he has been given an area of 13.43 acre, hence according to the Deputy Director of Consolidation it was correctly done. But this is not the intention of the Legislature in enacting Section 19 of the Act, whereas different considerations as stated above are to be taken into account while making allotment of Chaks. The Deputy Director of Consolidation has not considered the grievance of the Petitioner and he has decided the revision perfunctorily without applying his mind to the grounds of revision, the arguments advanced and grievances shown. The observation was that as the appeal filed by Respondent No. 3 was being allowed, hence consequential changes were carried out in the Chak of the Petitioner. But this was not justified on the part of the Deputy Director of Consolidation, who was exercising jurisdiction under Section 48 of the Act as a final court of fact. Under the circumstances, if either of the parties wanted and made an application for spot inspection containing reasons and grounds, that could have been allowed and the Dy. Director of Consolidation could have made spot inspection and there he could have ascertained the grievances of the parties after hearing them after spot inspection. The order of the Deputy Director of Consolidation being so cryptic of containing no reasons cannot be sustained.