DAMODAR PRASAD Vs. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF CONSOLIDATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The writ petition is directed against the judgment and order dated 26.10.1993 of the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Allahabad rendered in three connected revisions, one filed by the Petitioner, the second by Udai Narain and the third by Mahadeo. The Petitioner had filed revision being aggrieved by the appellate order dated 10.6.1992 under Section 21 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act (in short the 'Act'). The revision filed by Mahadeo was against the order dated 23.11.1991 passed by the appellate authority in another appeal, and the revision preferred by Udai Narain was preferred against the order dated 21.2.1990 of the Consolidation Officer, whereby the Consolidation Officer had, keeping in view the location and purpose for which plot No. 402 was being used, excluded the same from the consolidation scheme. The Deputy Director of Consolidation by a common order dated 26.10.1993 allowed all the three revisions and directed alteration in respective chaks of the parties as per amendment chart attached to the order. The Petitioner felt aggrieved due to inclusion of his original plot No. 402/2 in the scheme for the purposes of rearrangement of holdings and its allotment to contesting Respondents and hence, the present petition.

(2.) Heard Sri S.N. Singh for the Petitioner and Sri Sankatha Rai for the Respondent Nos., 3 to 7 and 9.

(3.) Learned Counsel for the Petitioner urged that the revision against the order dated 21.2.1990 was highly belated in that it was filed about three years after the order was passed by the Consolidation Officer and the Deputy Director of Consolidation allowed the revision, set aside the order dated 21.2.1990 without examining the question as to whether the delay in filing the revision was, in the facts and circumstances of the case, sufficiently explained and without adverting himself to the reasons and grounds which impelled the Consolidation Officer to exclude plot No. 402/2 from the consolidation scheme and set it apart as chak-out. in reply, Sri Sankatha Rai urged that the Deputy Director of Consolidation has considered the matter at length and rightly set aside the order dated 21.2.1990 inasmuch as plot No. 402/2 was found cultivable on spot at the time of local inspection by the Deputy Director of Consolidation. It was urged by Sri Sankatha Rai that only such lands could be excluded from the purview of rearrangement of holdings as are mentioned in the explanation to Sub-section (2) of Section 3 of the Act and it was impermissible to set apart cultivable lands as chak-out.