Point of law: Consolidation proceeding settles dispute for generations to come and in case a person is allotted a chak in front of others residential house, it may cause great and irreparable injury and inconvenience to both the parties for decades to come. Therefore, Deputy Director of Consolidation being last Court of consolidation proceeding is bound to consider all grievances of the parties raised before him as well as to consider whether principle of allotment of chaks to the parties including private source of irrigation was followed or not

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Sri R.C. Singh, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Santosh Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent nos. 1 and 2 and Sri Suresh Chandra Verma, learned counsel appearing for respondent no. 3.

2. This writ petition is directed against an order dated 30.12.1996, passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Azamgarh in Revision No. 251 arising out of proceedings under Section 20 of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as 'the C.H. Act'). The case of petitioner is that he is Chak holder no. 5, whereas respondent no. 3 is Chak holder no. 210. It is claimed that the said Chak was originally recorded in the name of the petitioner's father which he has inherited being his son and sole heir. It is the petitioner's case that plot no. 60/3 ad-measuring 570 kari which is part of his original holding, abuts the Azamgarh Bilariyaganj Road and located at a distance of 3 kms from the city of Azamgarh. It is claimed to be a valuable piece of land carrying a high market value. The petitioner had been proposed three Chaks by the Assistant Consolidation Officer in the Provisional Consolidation Scheme. Lateron, the Consolidation Officer by his order dated 06.05.1986 allotted two Chaks to the petitioner, instead of three as proposed. One of those Chaks included plot no. 60/3 to the extent of an area of 149 links alone, as against his original holding where the said plot bore an area of 570 links. The other Chak allotted to the petitioner comprised his original holding in plot no. 19.

3. Aggrieved by the aforesaid orders passed by the Consolidation Officer, the petitioner carried an Appeal to the Settlement Officer of Consolidation who dismissed it by a judgment and order dated 5th April, 1990. It requires to be clarified here that another Appeal against the same determination was lodged by the petitioner's father, who was alive at that time, and both these Appeals came to be decided by different orders. The Appeal filed by the petitioner's father was decided vide order dated 15.03.1995. Both Appeals met the same fate and were dismissed by the Settlement Officer of Consolidation. The petitioner filed three Revisions to the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Azamgarh that were numbered as Revision Nos. 251, 238 and 240. These Revisions were consolidated, heard and decided by a common judgment and order dated 30th December, 1996. Revision Nos. 238 and 240 were partly allowed but so far as Revision No. 251 (Ram Badan Vs. Ram Murat & Others) was concerned, it is the petitioner's case that the same was dismissed, though the operative portion of the order shows it to be partly allowed. The success in Revision nos. 238 and 240 led to restoration of some further area for the petitioner on his original holding in plot no. 60/3. This writ petition is confined in its challenge to the judgment and order passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation, rendered in Revision No. 251 and not the other revisions decided by the said judgment.

4. The petitioner's grievance primarily appears to be about plot no. 60/3 where he has demonstrated before this Court from the entries in C.H. Form 23 that he had an original holding of 570 links. It is pointed out by Sri R.C. Singh learned Senior Advocate for the petitioner, that in the second chak that includes the petitioner's original holding, comprised of plot no. 60/3, renumbered as plot no. 378, he has been allotted a total area of 321 links alone as against the original holding indicated above.

5. Sri Suresh Chandra Verma, learned counsel for the contesting respondents has disputed this submission and has pointed out that another 134 links have been allotted to the petitioner in plot no. 60/3 (old) which is evident from the order passed in a reference dated 23.10.2003, a copy of which has been filed by the petitioner as part of Annexure No. SRA 2 appended to the supplementary rejoinder affidavit dated