CHATRADHARI Vs. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF CONSOLIDATION ALLAHABAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) My means of this petition petitioner has challenged the judgment of the Deputy Director of Consolidation dated 17-6-1993 by which revision filed by the respondent has been allowed. 2. Proceedings are under Section 20 of U. P. C. H. Act, which is in respect to allotment of plots in the chak of the parties. Needless to say in these proceedings both parties can never be satisfied as it is not possible to accept the claim of both side in its entirety and thus the approach of the Court is to see that whether there is any violation of Section 19 of the U. P. C. H. Act or petitioner can be said to have has suffered any serious prejudice calling for interference in the equity jurisdiction. 3. So far the case in hand is concerned there is no dispute about the fact that both parties are real brothers having joint holdings. The dispute appears to be in respect to adjustment/allotment of plot No. 184. Claim of the petitioner side is that this plot is to be proportionately given to both sides whereas claim of respondent side is that this plot has to be exclusively given to the petitioner. 4. Submission of the learned Counsels for the petitioner is that this plot was jointly given by the petitioner and respondent to a third person for getting the land used for the purpose of brick kiln and as now earth has been taken out from this plot the ground has become lowered down and thus both parties are to get allotment over this plot in proportion. Submission is that another plot No. 546 which is also of bad quality and, therefore, Appellate Court adjusting equity made adjustment in the manner that both parties got their chak on plot No. 184 and 546 but the Deputy Director of Consolidation by allowing revision of the respondent has placed petitioner only over plot No. 184 on account of which petitioner has suffered serious prejudice. 5. In response to the aforesaid Sri Radhey Shyam, learned Counsel for the respondent submits that land was never given by his client for the purpose of brick kiln and that was sole act of petitioner and, therefore, he is to get plot No. 184 solely. Submission is that Deputy Director of Consolidation, keeping in mind the fact that plot No. 184 happens to be in possession of the petitioner made necessary changes and therefore, no interference is required. 6. In view of the aforesaid, the Court has examined the matter. 7. There is no dispute about the fact that both parties happens to be brothers and at some point of time plot No. 184 belonged to both parties. Dispute is that whether plot No. 184 was given for the purpose of brick kiln by both sides or by petitioner only. Copy of the agreement which is said to have been brought on record of this Court bears signature of both sides. But at the same time this is not for this Court to examine genuineness in respect to the signatures. Be as it may, plot No. 546 also is of bad quality. Deputy Director of Consolidation by giving finding that plot No. 184 happens to be in possession of the petitioner made certain changes. This Court is afraid that findings so given by the Deputy Director of Consolidation about possession of the petitioner over plot No. 184 is based on solid foundation or not. Be as it may, this Court is of the view that Deputy Director of Consolidation has allowed revision in most cryptic manner without considering petitioner's hardship which has been stated before this Court, copy of the agreement and other documents so placed before this Court which were liable to be taken note. In adjusting equity between the parties in respect to plot Nos. 184 and 546 Appellate Court has assigned reasons which has not been met and reversed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation. On the facts, this Court is convinced that Deputy Director of Consolidation has not properly gone into merits in the contention of petitioner's side and has allowed revision in a cursory manner. 8. In view of the aforesaid, this petition succeeds and is allowed and the judgment of Deputy Director of Consolidation dated 17-6-1993 is hereby quashed. The matter is sent back to the Revisional Court for deciding the matter afresh, preferably within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order without allowing any unnecessary adjournment to either of the sides unless it is required for very compelling reasons Petition allowed. .