ASBARAN Vs. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF CONSOLIDATION AND ANR.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition is directed against the order dated 21 -1 -1986 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation in revision under Section 48 of the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act (for short the Act) arising out of proceedings under Section 20 of the Act. Briefly stated the facts of the case, are as follows:

(2.) AN objection was filed by the Petitioner Under Section 20 of the Act before the Consolidation Officer wherein he had prayed that he be allotted a chak east -west long taking plot No. 1855 etc. It may be mentioned at this stage that the Petitioner was allotted second chak on plot No. 150 etc. measuring 2.10 acres. In the objection, therefore, he had requested that this chak be made east -west long This objection was considered by the Consolidation Officer along with certain other objections of other tenure holders and vide order dated 19 -5 -1982, the Petitioner's chaks were altered. The Petitioner thereupon filed appeal before the Settlement Officer, Consolidation, who decided the appeal vide order dated 07.02.1983 along with certain other appeals. By this order the Petitioner's chaks were altered as per amendment chart appended to the order, a certified copy of which has been annexed as Annexure 2 to this writ petition. By this order alteration was made in the Petitioner's chak allotted in Sector Nos. 31 and 32. Still feeling aggrieved the Petitioner bad preferred revision which was heard along with certain other revisions filed by other tenure holders, i.e. Ram Kumar and Ram Piarey These three revisions were disposed of by judgment and order dated 21 -1 -1985 and by it the Petitioner's chak was suitably altered by the Deputy Director of Consolidation. His third small chak measuring 0.74 acres in Sector NJ 34 was abolished and he was allotted chak in lieu thereof in Sector No. 32. The Petitioner has, thus, been allotted two chaks by the Deputy Director of Consolidation. This order has been challenged by the Petitioner in the present writ petition.

(3.) IT is not disputed that the Deputy Director of Consolidation has passed the impugned order after giving hearing to the parties. He has given cogent reasons for making alteration in the chaks of the Petitioner with that of opposite party No. 2 Ram Kumar Thus, in the process of adjustment of chaks made by the Deputy Director of Consolidation while deciding revisions he could allot chaks to the parties, which he may deem fit and proper on the facts of the case in exercise of powers Under Section 48 of the Act. The reduction in the allotted area to the extent of 28 per cent from that of the original holding appears to have occurred on account of the fact that the Petitioner has been allotted better quality of land of exchange ratio of 12 annals as against land taken out from his chak which was valued at exchange ratio of 8 -10 annals, and, as such, allotment was made by the Deputy Director or Consolidation as he had found quite appropriate to do so and I find appropriate alteration has been made by the Deputy Director of Consolidation in making such allotment. Thus, in my opinion, the allotment of chak in question to the petitioner made by the Deputy Director of Consolidation would not be illegal as urged by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner on the ground of want of permission of Director of Consolidation as envisaged under proviso to Section 19(1)(b) of the Act because the Deputy Director of Consolidation, who exercises delegated powers of Director of Consolidation, would be taken to have impliedly permitted allotment of sucn chak while making appropriate alteration in the chaks of the parties by the impugned order passed in Revision Under Section 48(1) of the Act.