SHEO NATH Vs. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF CONSOLIDATION VARANASI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) POONAM Srivastava, J. Heard Sri Triveni Shanker, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri Awadhesh Kumar Singh Advocate for the contesting respondents.

(2.) THE order of the Deputy Director of Consolidation dated 28-8-1981 is impugned in the instant writ petition. THE controversy in the instant writ petition arises out of proceedings under Section 42-A of the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) in respect of land situated in village Pagahi, Pargana Mahaich, Tehsil Chandauli, District Varanasi. After completion of the consolidation, chaks were carved out and the petitioner was allotted chak No. 306 whereas respondent Nos. 4 to 6 are chak holders of chak No. 301. THE allotment of chak was notified under Section 20 of the Act and CH Form 23 was confirmed on 10-1-1973. According to the submission of the Counsel for the petitioner, the respondent Nos. 4 to 6 got the value altered in the original CH Form 23 which resulted in increase of rental value of chak No. 301 considerably. THE proceeding was initiated by the Lekhpal under Section 42-A of the Act and on the basis of a report forwarded by the Assistant Consolidation Officer on 4-7-1977, the Consolidation Officer passed an order making correction of the valuation of the respective chaks of the parties vide its order dated 7-7- 1977. This order was passed without notice to the petitioner and he had no opportunity whatsoever to oppose the said alteration/correction. When the petitioner came to know about the aforesaid fact, he moved an application on 20-12-1978 for recalling the order of the Consolidation Officer with the specific allegation that he was given no notice before the CH Form 23 was amended on the basis of a report forwarded by the Lekhpal and valuation of the chaks of the contesting respondents was considerably increased. THE Consolidation Officer vide order dated 9- 10-1980 allowed the application and recalled his earlier order. THE order of the Consolidation Officer has been annexed as Annexure-3 to the writ petition. THE earlier order of the Consolidation Officer dated 7- 7-1977 stood recalled so far it related to the petitioner's chak No. 306 and 301 of the contesting respondents. This order was challenged in revision by the contesting respondents which was allowed vide order dated 28-8-1981. THE revisional order is impugned in the instant writ petition.

(3.) ON perusal of the order of the Deputy Director of Consolidation, it is apparent that he has set aside the order of the Consolidation Officer whereby discretion exercised by him granting benefit of Section 5 of the Limitation Act has been interfered in exercise of revisional power. The Deputy Director of Consolidation also allowed an amendment made in the garb of correction proceeding after the village was de-notified by the Consolidation Officer. The revisional Court tried to interfere on these questions of fact on the basis of a compromise entered between the parties in a criminal proceeding before the S. H. O. , which admittedly was subsequent to the impugned order dated 7-7- 1977 which effected the valuation of the chak of the petitioner.