ZAFAR AHMAD Vs. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF CONSOLIDATION BIJNOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri Faujdar Rai, learned counsel for petitioner and Sri R. K. Shukla, learned counsel for respondent No. 2. By means of present writ petition, petitioner has approached this Court for issuing a writ of certiorari quashing order dated 11. 11. 2008 passed by respondent No. 1 (Annexure 1 to writ petition ). Petitioner, who was dissatisfied with order passed by Deputy Director of Consolidation, Bijnor filed a Writ Petition before this Court as Writ Petition No. 2454 of 2008 (Zafar Ahmad Vs. Deputy Director of Consolidation Bijnor and others ). The same was allowed and matter was remanded back to Deputy Director of Consolidation vide its order dated 12. 3. 2008. The operative portion of order is being reproduced below:- "in view of the above, ends of justice be served in remanding the matter to the Deputy Director of Consolidation for decision of the revision afresh keeping into consideration that co-sharers be allotted the chak adjoining the road as for as possible and also source of irrigation be given to the tenure holders as far as possible. The order impugned dated 15. 11. 2007 is set aside and the matter is remanded to the Deputy Director of Consolidation who may pass fresh order after hearing all the parties in accordance with law expeditiously preferably within a period of four months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order. " Now, grievance raised by petitioner is that petitioner being a small farmer has been allotted two chaks and respondent has been allotted only chak. Further submission has been made by Sri Fhaujdar Rai, learned counsel for petitioner that spot inspection was done after hearing the parties and that is not permissible. The order passed by this Court in writ petition filed by petitioner has not been complied with and equity was to be observed according to order of this Court. Further argument by Sri Fhaujdar Rai, Advocate is that local inspection was made after hearing. Reliance has been placed upon a judgement of this Court reported in 1980 Revenue Decision, 324 Sri Ram Deo Vs. Deputy Director of Consolidation. Placing reliance upon aforesaid judgement learned counsel for petitioner submits that if local inspection has been made after argument, then further hearing after spot inspection is necessary and if it has been done, it is not permissible and without any application filed by petitioner or any aggrieved party, matter should have been further heard by Deputy Director of Consolidation. I have considered this argument and decision. From perusal of order passed by Deputy Director of Consolidation, it does not appear from any means that after hearing, local inspection was made. Only mention was made by Deputy Director of Consolidation in his order that PAKSHKARO KO SUNA, SPOT INSPECTION KIYA AUR ABHILEKHO KA AVLOKAN KIYA. It does not give any inference that spot inspection was made by Deputy Director of Consolidation after hearing the parties. I have considered the submissions and perusal the record. A finding to this effect has been recorded by revisional Court taking into consideration the direction issued by this Court that if two chaks are not being made, order passed by High Court cannot be complied with following equity. Further finding has been recorded that Ghata Nos. 67,68 and 69 are valuable plots adjacent to the road and due to this change, both brothers i. e. petitioner and his brother Rafat Ahmad will get valuable plots adjacent to the road. Further finding has been recorded that due to this change, revisionist will also get the plots adjacent to the road. Further a finding has been recorded that parties were heard and spot inspection was made and after verification, orders have been passed. From perusal of order, it clearly appears that revisional court i. e. Deputy Director of Consolidation has taken into consideration the balance of convenience, valuation of land of all the parties, who are co- sharer in the property in dispute and in compliance of the order of this Court has passed appropriate orders. In view of aforesaid fact, I find no merit in the writ petition. The writ petition is devoid of merits and is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs. .