The court mandated strict compliance with prior judicial orders by the Deputy Director of Consolidation, ensuring that adjustments to chak holdings do not violate past rulings.

JUDGMENT :

J.J. Munir, J.

1. Heard Mr. Rajesh Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. R.C. Singh, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. N.D. Shukla, learned counsel for respondent Nos.6, 7 and 8.

2. This writ petition is directed against the order dated 28th November, 2017, passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Deoria in Revision No. 23/29, under Section 48 U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (for short 'the Act of 1953'). This order has been passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation, after the judgment and order dated 16th August, 2016 passed by this Court inter partes in Writ B No. 66497 of 2010 remanding the matter with directions to the Deputy Director of Consolidation to decide afresh.

3. The case arose out of objections under Section 20 of the Act of 1953. The dispute is one between the petitioner, who is chak holder No. 237 and respondent No. 3, Kashi son of Jai Mangal, chak holder No. 90. It appears that the petitioner's father, who had his original holding in Plot Nos. 18 and 111 comprising an area of 0.42 acre during the last round of consolidation operations, was proposed a chak by the Assistant Consolidation Officer with an area of 0.45 acre. The petitioner objected. The Consolidation Officer modified the petitioner's chak to some extent. This order was appealed to the Assistant Settlement Officer of Consolidation, who vide his order dated 15th January, 1983 allotted a chak to the petitioner with an area of 0.30 acre. The petitioner challenged the aforesaid order in revision. The Deputy Director of Consolidation decided the petitioner's revision along with other chak revisions of the village. The revisions were dismissed vide order dated 17th April, 1985. The petitioner filed an application seeking recall of the aforesaid order. The recall application was dismissed in default vide order dated 13th September, 1985. Next the petitioner filed another application seeking recall of the orders dated 13th September, 1985 and 17th April, 1985. The Deputy Director of Consolidation vide his order dated 23rd November, 1985 recalled the order dated 13th September, 1985 and allowed the application. By a subsequent order dated 27th October, 1988, he recalled the order dated 17th April, 1985, dismissing the revision and proceeded to allow the petitioner's revision on merits.

4. It appears that by the order dated 27th October, 1988, the third respondent's chak was adjusted and its area substantially reduced. Respondent No. 3, therefore, filed an application seeking to recall the orders dated 23rd November, 1985 and 27th October, 1988, which came to be allowed by an order dated 10th August, 2010 holding that the order dated 17th April, 1985 was a judgment on merits after hearing parties, which could not be recalled by the Deputy Director of Consolidation. The Deputy Director of Consolidation had no jurisdiction. Aggrieved by the order dated 10th August, 2010, the petitioner filed Writ B No. 66497 of 2010. Upon hearing the said writ petition, this Court affirmed the findings recorded by the Deputy Director of Consolidation vide his order dated 10th August, 2010 that his earlier order of 17th April, 1985 was an order on merits. To the above extent, this Court declined to interfere with the order dated 10th August, 2010 impugned in Writ B No. 66497 of 2010.

5. Next the Court took note of the fact that vide order dated 15th January, 1983, the Assistant Settlement Officer of Consolidation had substantially reduced the petitioner's area. The petitioner had challenged that order of the Settlement Officer of Consolidation in revision which was dismissed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation vide order dated 17th April, 1985. The order of the Deputy Director of Consolidation dated 17