BALKARAN AND OTHERS Vs. UDAIRAJ VERMA AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a special appeal directed against the judgment of a learned Single Judge of this Court. It has arisen in the following circumstances.

(2.) A long time after the confirmation of allotment of Chaks, which was made after the dismissal of the revision filed by the appellants before the Deputy Director of Consolidation, the appellants moved an application supported by a recommendatory letter from the Deputy Speaker of the Assembly, praying that they had been prejudiced by allotment of a certain plot in their Chak, which though entered as 'Doras Abi' was valued at the rate meant for 'Goind' land. On this application the Consolidation Officer made a local inspection and reported that the mistake alleged by the appellants in respect of the particular plot in the matter of its valuation had been committed and as such it would be proper to give the Chak containing that plot to respondents Nos. 1 and 2 in exchange of the Chak given to them which may be given to the appellants, since the particular plot was in the original holding of the appellants. This report was accepted by the Settlement Officer, Consolidation and approved by the Deputy Director without affording any chance to respondents Nos. 1 and 2 to be heard. On coming to know about it, respondents Nos. 1 and 2 moved an application before the Deputy Director of Consolidation seeking revocation of that approval given to the aforesaid report of the Consolidation Officer. The Deputy Director after hearing the parties rejected the application and maintained the earlier order dated May 1, 1962 by his order dated Aug. 27, 1962. Aggrieved by these orders respondents Nos. 1 and 2 filed a writ petition praying for the quashing of the aforesaid orders mainly on the ground that the Deputy Director had no jurisdiction to pass the same.

(3.) It is admitted on all hands that the Act which applied to the case is the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act as it stood prior to its amendment by U.P. Act No. 38 of 1958. The learned Single Judge held that in view of the earlier revision filed by the appellants having been dismissed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation, he had no jurisdiction under any provision of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act to alter the Chaks of appellants Nos. 1 and 2 in the manner he did.