SUNDAR LAL Vs. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF CONSOLIDATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By means of this writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have challenged the order dated 24.2.2000 passed by Deputy Director of Consolidation dismissing the revisions filed by them and various other persons and remanding the case back after setting aside the provisional consolidation scheme with a direction to the Assistant Consolidation Officer to prepare the same afresh after redetermining the valuation and exchange ratio. A further writ of mandamus has been claimed to direct the Deputy Director of Consolidation to decide the revisions filed by the petitioners on merits.

(2.) Briefly stated facts are as follows :- After publication of the provisional consolidation scheme the contesting respondent no. 8 along with 215 other tenure holders of the village filed objection against the provisional consolidation scheme on the ground that a large number of illegalities and irregularities were committed by the subordinate staffs in revision of field books, determination of valuation of the plots and exchange ratio. The Consolidation Officer after consolidating all the 216 objections decided the same by a common judgment dated 16.7.1992. It was held by the Consolidation Officer that material injustice will be caused to general tenure holders if the provisional consolidation scheme is given effect to and a fair and proper allotment of chaks to the tenure holders is not possible without preparation of a fresh consolidation scheme after redetermining the valuation and the exchange ratio. The said judgement of the Consolidation Officer was challenged by filing three appeals. The Settlement Officer Consolidation consolidated the appeals and vide judgment dated 9.6.1995 dismissed the same. Both the authorities have pointed out following illegalities and irregularities in the preparation of the provisional consolidation scheme:-

(3.) The Assistant Consolidation Officer without carrying out the aforesaid directions invited fresh objections from the tenure holders against the old provisional consolidation scheme. The petitioners, it appears filed objections which was decided by the Consolidation Officer vide order dated 17.1.1997. Appeals were filed which were decided by the Settlement Officer Consolidation vide order dated 7.4.1998. The petitioners challenged the appellate order before the Deputy Director of Consolidation in revision. Certain other revisions were also filed. The Deputy Director of Consolidation consolidated all the revisions and decided them by common order dated 24.2.2000. The Deputy Director of Consolidation found that the direction issued by the Consolidation Officer vide order dated 16.7.1992 confirmed in appeal by the Settlement Officer Consolidation on 9.6.1995 have not been followed. He has also noted in the judgement various illegalities and irregularities in the provisional consolidation scheme. The Deputy Director of Consolidation set aside the provisional consolidation scheme and remanded the case back to the Assistant Consolidation Officer to redetermine the valuation and exchange ratio afresh and after hearing the tenure holders and thereafter prepare a fresh provisional consolidation scheme.