JUDGMENT S.N. Srivastava, J.
1. This writ petition is directed against the judgment dated 18th February, 2003, allowing revisions of Sheeshpal and Devendra Singh, contesting opposite parties herein, granting the relief claimed by them for providing nail and chakroad up to the boundary of village Tana considering the, claim of chakholder of chak No. 1002 and other persons.
2. The relevant facts are that opposite party No. 2 Devendra Singh is chakholder of chak No. 420, opposite party No. 4 Sheesh Pal is chakholder of chak No. 1002. The petitioner is chakholder of chak No. 1159. Chak Nos. 1002 and various other chaks are situated at the border adjoining village Tana, chakholder of chak No. 1002 and chak No. 420 have raised their grievances before the Consolidation authorities for providing nalt and chakroad but no heed was paid to their request, hence they preferred appeal before the Settlement Officer, Consolidation. The Settlement Officer, Consolidation by the order dated 30.11.1998 in Appeal No. 127 dismissed the appeal as not maintainable on the ground that after transfer of possession, appellant has not raised any objection. He cannot get chakroad and nali after actual possession was handed over and his claim on merit is also not acceptable. He had already got nali and chakroad. In the revision preferred by Devendra Singh (opposite party No. 2) before the Deputy Director of Consolidation, his main grievance was that the nali provided to chakholders of chak Nos. 486, 201 and 1002 towards West is situated at low lying area and no irrigation is possible. Looking into the level of the land, nali should be constructed towards East of chak Nos. 1062, 1159, 1084 and East of chak No. 1044. His further ground taken in the revision was that the chakroad which was constructed towards North of chak No. 1044 East-West has not been linked with the chakroad of village Tana and there is distance of 5-6 lattha because of which this chakroad is incomplete and it does not connect the road of village Tana, therefore, this road may be connected. It was further mentioned in the memo of revision that after 2-2 chaks in the East of chak Ns. 1040 and 1084 in village Tana irrigation facility is available and the same may be made available to him and other chakholders as nali from village Tana upto chak Nos. 1084 and 1044 is already existing, same may be linked so that canal water may be used for irrigation purposes by other chakholders including contesting opposite party.
3. The Deputy Director of Consolidation made a spot inspection. He found that towards the boundary adjoining village Tana, the petitioner has constructed Dev Sthan in chak No. 1084 and 1159 and on the boundary of southern side of these chaks, he found poplar tress standing. He further found that chak of chakholder No. 1002 adjoins the boundary of village Tana but no irrigation facility is available. The Deputy Director of Consolidation by the judgment dated 18.2.2003 made provisions of irrigation facilities on the southern boundary of chak No. 201 up to chak No. 1002. This, according to the Deputy Director of Consolidation, will help other chakholders also including chakholder of chak No. 1062 whose nali was hanging. The Deputy Director of Consolidation has further passed order for linking nali towards northern boundary of chak No. 1044 and Southern boundary of chak No. 1159 protecting Dev Sthan of petitioner connecting the nali with the boundary of village Tana. Deputy Director of Consolidation has recorded a finding that this nali will connect chakholder of chak No. 420 with the boundary of village Tana and provide irrigation facilities to chakholder of chak No. 1002 also. On account of construction of nali, Chakroad Bachat land will be affected.
4. From the perusal of the schedule attached with the order of the Deputy Director of Consolidation, it appears that from chak No. 2906 15 biswansi, chak No. 2909 1 biswa and chak No. 2915 10 biswansi, total 2 biswa 5 biswansi land was contributed from the land reserved for nali, chakroad and Bachat. From the chak of the petitioner only 1 biswa land was taken form chak No. 2907 and 1 biswa land was given to him in the same chak with some other dimension. He was not affected at all.
5. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that though in the order itself, it has been mentioned that the Dev Sthan constructed by the petitioner will not be affected but inspite of this order, there is every possibility that the petitioner's Dev Sthan may be affected. He further urged that as the appeal was not maintainable, the only scope left for the Deputy Director of Consolidation was to decide whether the appeal was maintainable or not. The order passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation after spot inspection is vitiated in law. He further urged that after confirmation of the consolidation scheme and handing over of possession no nali or chakroad could be made for any individual chakholder. He relied upon a decision in Udai Bhan Dubey and Anr. v. Sahayak Sanchalak Chakbandi. Lucknow, Camp at Gorakhpur and Ors., 1982 RD 246.
6. In reply to the same, learned standing counsel urged that the order was rightly passed in accordance with law. Nali and chakroad was rightly provided under the impugned order by the Deputy Director of Consolidation.
7. Considered the argument of learned counsel for petitioner and learned standing counsel.
8. From the perusal of the order passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation, it transpires that he has made spot inspection. Admittedly, chakroad, was constructed not only for any individual person but it was constructed for all the chakholders. Opposite party Nos. 3 and 4 pointed out to the Deputy Director of Consolidation that chakroad ends at a distance of 5-6 fts. from chakroad of village Tana and only this 5-6 feets remains to be linked with the chakroad of village Tana. This prayer was for public purpose and not for any individual person. Under the impugned order, chakroad was linked with the chakroad of village Tana and all the members of the village including the petitioner are benefited by the same. From the materials discussed in the impugned order and from the spot inspection, it is clear that no irrigation facility was available to the various chakholders including chakholder of chak Nos. 420, 1002 and other chakholders mentioned above. This was a final settlement going to be made during consolidation proceedings for the generations to come under the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act and, therefore, the Deputy Director of Consolidation has rightly decided in favour of the contesting opposite parties. Moreover, only 1 biswa land was taken from the petitioner's chak which was given to him in the same chak for the purpose of providing permanent irrigation facilities towards the boundary of village Tana and connecting chakroad with the chakroad of village Tana and justice was caused to all the parties. The petitioner has not been affected at all. No prejudice is caused to the petitioner if 1 biswa of land was taken from petitioner's chak No. 2909 and given to him in the same chak at some other place in comparison to the hardship of the other chakholders. The order passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation was in the public interest benefiting the chakholders and it was strictly on the basis of principles laid down under Section 52A of the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act.
9. Sections 52A (4) (a) and (b) of the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, which provide principe of providing chakroad after confirmation of consolidation scheme are being reproduced below :
"52A. Special provisions for chakroads and chak guls.--
(a) That as far as practicable, provision of chakroads and chak guls should be made primarily by utilising land vested in the Gaon Sabha and secondarily out of land held by those tenure-holders whose chaks are connected with the proposed chak roads or chak guls, and in the last resort, out of any other land ;
(b) The re-arrangement of chaks should be made only to the extent it is really necessary for making provision of chak roads and chak guls with the minimum possible dislocation in the Consolidation Scheme already confirmed."
10. Learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to show any prejudice caused to him. Only 1 biswa of land taken from petitioner's chak No. 2909 was given to him on the other side in the same chak. 2 biswa 5 biswansi land was taken from Bachat land, chakroad and nali. Most of the area was contributed from the public utility land. There is also specific order that naii shall be constructed protecting the Dev Sthan constructed by the petitioner. In these circumstances, impugned order passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation was perfectly valid. I also agree with the same. The case relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioner does not support petitioner's case in the facts and circumstances of the present case.
11. The other argument of learned counsel for the petitioner that as the Settlement Officer, Consolidation though mentioned in the order that the contesting opposite parties got nali and chakroad but as appeal was preferred after handing over the possession on confirmation of chaks, it is not maintainable. In view of this, the only scope left for revisional court was to hear the revision on the question of maintainability and not on merit.
12. I do not agree with the argument of learned counsel for petitioner inasmuch as finding of the appellate court was based on merits also but without any spot inspection. The Deputy Director of Consolidation has rightly made spot inspection and passed appropriate orders in accordance with law. Consolidation proceeding is State sponsored scheme by which final settlement was going to be made. In these circumstances, the order was rightly passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation taking into account grievance of a number of chakholders and the welfare/benefit to the entire public in providing nali and chak-road. Moreover, power of the Deputy Director of Consolidation under the provisions by amendment dated 4th September, 2002, introduced by the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings (Amendment) Act, 2002. Section 48 of the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act stood amended and Explanation 3 was added which runs as follows :
"Explanation 3.--The power under this section to examine the correctness, legality or propriety of any order includes the power to examine any finding, whether of fact or law, recorded by any subordinate authority, and also includes the power to re-appreciate any oral or documentary evidence."
13. The aforesaid amendment makes it clear that power of the Deputy Director of Consolidation under Section 48 to examine correctness, legality and propriety of any order includes power to examine any finding, whether on fact or law, recorded by any subordinate authority and it also includes the power to re-appreciate any oral or documentary evidence. This amendment empowered the Deputy Director of Consolidation to re-appraise the evidence to look into the entire matter and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law.
14. The argument of learned counsel for the petitioner that the revisional court has no jurisdiction to proceed on merits cannot be entertained.
15. In the light of the observations made above, the writ petition fails and is dismissed.