JUTHAN SINGH Vs. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF CONSOLIDATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) It appears that a reference was prepared to allot bachat land of the Gaon Sabha to the petitioner to compensate him. The demand of the petitioner was that he may be compensated by allotment of plot no. 894 and plot no. 821. Plot no. 821was recorded as kalihan. The Deputy Director of Consolidation considered the matter and he found that kalihan was a public utility land and could not be allotted. He however directed allotment of land on plot no.894. Thereafter an application was filed by Shiv Nath, Ambika and Lochan for setting aside the order dated 30.3.1978 of the Deputy Director of Consolidation which was described by them as an exparte order. The Deputy Director of Consolidation considered the matter and by his impugned order dated 27.7.1979 allowed the application and set aside the allotment of plot no. 894 in favour of the petitioner and has directed that some other bachat land may be allotted to the petitioner as plot no. 894 was a pokhari. This order of the Deputy Director of Consolidation has been challenged by the petitioner.

(2.) It is submitted by S/Sri Pradeep Kumar and V.K. Rai holding brief for Sri Sankatha Rai counsel for the petitioner that the Deputy Director of Consolidation had no power to review his order and that the finding recorded by the Deputy Director of Consolidation that plot no. 894 which was allotted to the petitioner was a pokhari is erroneous. The Deputy Director of Consolidation has recorded a finding that the order dated 30.3.1978 was passed without issuing any notice to the Land Management Committee even though the Pradhan had appeared but there was no resolution of the Land Management Committee. He also made spot inspection of the disputed plot no. 894 on 27.6.1979 and found that it was a pond five feet deep at one place and still deeper beyond. It was found that in the basic year plot no. 894 was recorded as pokhari. The finding therefore is that the land in question being a pokhari is a public utility land and could not have been alloted to the petitioner.

(3.) It is true that the Deputy Director of Consolidation has no power of review but the finding is that the order was an exparte one as no notice was served upon the Land Management committee and there was no resolution by it. Moreover jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution is an equity jurisdiction. The finding that the disputed plot is a pokhari does not appear be erroneous and is a finding of fact. All that the petitioner is entitled for is allotment of some land but he is not entitled to allotment of any particular land of the Gaon Sabha. The Deputy Director of Consolidation has already directed that other land be allotted to the petitioner. The petitioner's interest is thus protected by the impugned order.