An application for nali and rasta after the finalisation of the consolidation scheme is not maintainable where no objection was filed by the Petitioner u/s 20 of the Act and there is no specific provision under the Act or the Rules framed under the Act for providing a rasta and nali to any private tenure-holder.

R.S. Singh, J.

This is a petition directed against the order of the Dy. Director of Consolidation dated 4-6-1971 dismissing the revision filed by the Petitioner.

2. The facts of the case, in brief, are that after the finalisation of the consolidation scheme a pumping set was installed by the Petitioner in his well. The Petitioner was allotted chaks at three places. In order to irrigate his other chaks from the pumping set installed by him on one of his chaks, the Petitioner began to construct a pucca nali on the land left for village abadi. Chak-holder No. 112, Respondent No. 1, created obstructions. The Petitioner moved an application to the Asstt. Consolidation Officer for affording nali and rasta for the irrigation of one chak from his tube-well installed on the other chak. The Asstt. Consolidation Officer sent the case to the C. O. who with his own report sent the same to the S. O. (C). The S. O. (C) by his order dated 23-2-1970 rejected the application of the Petitioner on the ground that he should have filed objection under Sec, 20 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and it is not possible to allow water channel from common plot for private person or persons. The Petitioner filed a revision against the order of the S. O. (C). The Dy. Director of Consolidation also rejected the revision. The Dy. Director of Consolidation was of the view that in the absence of any objection u/s 20 of the Act the application was not maintainable. However, it was also held by the Dy. Director of Consolidation that there appears to be no justification to disturb other chak-holders or the tenants whose plots may fall in the way. The Petitioner has challenged the aforesaid orders before this Court.

3. There is no dispute about the fact that when the application for pro viding nali and chak was moved by the Petitioner the notification u/s 52 of the Act was not issued. But during the pendency of this writ petition the notification u/s 52 of the Act has been issued. One of the questions for consideration in this case is as to whether the application moved by the Petitioner after finalisation of the consolidation scheme is maintainable where no objection was filed by the Petitioner u/s 20 of the Act. Respondents Nos.

8 and 9 have rejected the application and taken the view that where no objection was filed u/s 20 of the Act, an application after the confirmation of the consolidation scheme is not maintainable.

4. It has been contended by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner that non-filing of objection u/s 20 of the Act cannot be a ground for dismissing the application for nali and rasta. The Petitioner was entitled to get relief u/s 48 (3) of the Act. In support of his contention he has relied on a decision reported in Mullhur v. Dy. D. C. 1967 R. D. 330 in which it has been held that a failure on the part of a party to file an objection u/s 20 of the Act does not take away the jurisdiction of the Dy. Director of Consolidation to take action under Sec, 48 (3) of the Act. He has further relied on a decision reported in Bhagwat v. Shekhar 1970 R. D. 169 in which a similar view was also taken.

5. The learned Counsel for the contesting Respondents is not able to support the view taken by Respondents Nos. 8 and 9 rejecting the Petitioner's application as not maintainable as no objection was filed by him under Sec, 20 of the Act. However, he tried to justify the orders passed by Respondents Nos. 8 and 9 on the ground that in the absence of any objection filed by the Petitioner u/s 9 of the Act regarding valuation of the plot at the proper stage, the application moved by the Petitioner is not maintainable and, therefore, the application was rightly rejected by Respondents Nos. 8 and 9. He elaborated his arguments by referring to the various provisions of the Act, He contended that according to the provisions of Section 8(1) (ii) of the Act the valuation of each plot is determined by the Asstt. Consolidati