BAJRANGI Vs. D.D.C.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri Mayank Krishna Singh Chandel, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Vimlesh Chandra Rai, holding brief of Sri A.K. Rai, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the contesting respondent Nos. 2/2/1 to 2/2/6.

(2.) This petition is directed against a judgment and order of the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Varanasi, dtd. 15/2/1986 passed in Revision No.643 of 1986, Thakuri Vs. Bajrangi and others. The aforesaid Revision brought by the second respondent, who originally figured in the array of parties, since deceased and now represented by his heirs and legal representatives, raising a grievance against the order dtd. 21/3/1985 passed by the Assistant Settlement Officer of Consolidation passed in two appeal, i.e. Appeal No.1104/455 Bhulai Vs. Azor and others and Appeal No.1103/456 Bhulai Vs. Ramazor and others. By the said order, the Settlement Officer of Consolidation, while hearing the two appeals last mentioned, filed by Bhulai,with regard to his Chak No.463 and another Chak number of his 509 allowed the said appeals, preferred presumably from some orders of the Chakbandi Officer, which do not find mention in the judgment of the SOC dtd. 21/3/1985. By the order dtd. 21/3/1985 rendered in appeals under Sec. 21(2) of the 55.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, (for short 'the Act') the SOC made a wrong determination. However, that is not relevant. What is relevant is that he appears to have taken away the land of the second respondent comprised in Khasra No.963 admeasuring 13 decimals and entered the same in the Chak of the petitioner.

(3.) The second respondent filed Revision No.653 of 1985 to the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Varanasi on grounds, amongst others, that the SOC by his order dtd. 21/3/1985 passed in two appeals carried by Bhulai, last mentioned, had taken away 13 decimals of land of Khasra No.963, which was the petitioner's original holding and allotted it to the petitioner in one of his Chaks. It was particularly pleaded that Bajrangi, the petitioner, had not appealed from any order of the Chakbandi Officer or had he made any demand for land to be taken out from the second respondent's Chak and given to him. Likewise, Bhulai, too did not raise any grievance against the allotment of Chaks to the petitioner made by the CO. It was also urged as one of the contentions that the ASOC, while hearing and deciding the appeals, by means of his order under challenge before the Deputy Director of Consolidation did so without hearing the second respondent, denying him opportunity of hearing. The second respondent further canvassed before the Deputy Director of Consolidation that Khasra No.963 admeasuring 13 decimals, that had been wrongfully entered in the petitioner's Chak under the orders impugned passed by the ASOC be restored to his Chak and that valuation for this restoration may be compensated to the petitioner from the second respondent's Chak by taking out Khasra No.1214, 1215 and 1216 that had been allotted to him, which may be entered in the petitioner's Chak. It was also urged by the second respondent before the Revisional Court that the three plots that he wished taken away from his Chak were abutting a canal and that allotment had led to the second respondent being given in all four Chaks whereas the petitioner has been given consolidated land, in two Chaks, in all. It was argued that allotment of land brought about by the ASOC's order impugned in Revision, where four Chaks were allotted to the second respondent was an anathema to the essence and policy of consolidation of holdings. This Chak revision was filed by the second respondent belatedly and, therefore, with the aid of an application for condonation of delay.