SHEO RAM Vs. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF CONSOLIDATION JAUNPUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SUDHIR Narain, J This writ peti tion is directed against the order dated 26-1 1-1981 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation allowing the revision filed by the respondents and making ad justment in the chaks of the parties.

(2.) THE petitioners and respondent Nos. 3 to 6 are co-tenure- holders. During the consolidation proceedings they were allotted separate chaks. Dudh Nath, respondent No. 3, dis-satisfied with the chak allotted to him filed appeal before the Settlement Officer Consolidation. THE Assistant Settlement Officer Consolida tion dismissed his appeal. Against the order of the Settlement Officer Consolida tion he preferred a revision before the Deputy Director of Consolidation. Respondent No. 1 allowed the revision by order dated 26-11-1981 making certain ad justment in the chaks of the petitioners and respondent No. 3. THE petitioners, aggrieved against this order, have filed this petition.

(3.) THE second submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the Deputy Director of Consolidation heard the arguments of the learned coun sel for the parties and thereafter made spot inspection. He did not prepare any memo of inspections and further after making spot inspection he did not again gave op portunity of hearing to the petitioners. THE reliance has been placed upon the decision Jeet Narain v. D. D. C. and others, 1983 Revenue Reports 439, wherein it was observed that requirement of preparation of spot inspection memo is not merely a formality, but it has to be prepared so as to give opportunity to the parties to file ob jections against it. In Ramdeo v. D. D. C. and others, 1980 AWC 593, it was observed that after hearing, a date is fixed for local in spection and after local inspection is made it is appropriate that the authority con cerned should further give opportunity of hearing to the parties.