JUDGMENT Naseemuddin, J.
1. This writ petition has been filed by Hausila Prasad under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for quashing order dated 30.8.97 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation. Sultanpur, opposite party No. 1 in respect of the petitioner's Chak No. 344/1 of village Rebha, Pargana and Tehsil Amethi district Sultanpur (Annexure No. 8).
2. Learned counsel for both the parties were heard.
3. The brief facts for the purpose of the disposal of the present writ petition are that petitioner Hausila Prasad was allotted Chaks. Out of them the first Chak was in respect of several plots including plot Nos. 344/1 and 344/2 which was the bhumidhari of the petitioner also. That in C. H. Form No. 2A during survey, trees were found by the authorities on plot No. 344/1 ; some of the part of this plot was parti. That a tubewell exists on plot No. 344/2 which is the private source of irrigation. That on the objection of Sarjoo Prasad, opposite party No. 2 the Chak was allotted to him of plot Nos. 145, 146 including plot No. 144. That Sarjoo Prasad challenged the order dated 30.3.96 passed by the Consolidation Officer before the Settlement Officer, Consolidation, Sultanpur. That opposite parties Nos. 3 to 5 had not filed any objection before the Consolidation Officer. However, appeal was filed by all the opposite parties. The appeal was dismissed on 17.8.96 by the Settlement Officer. Consolidation. A revision was filed before the D.D.C., Sultanpur, on 16.9.97 which was allowed and it is under challenge. By the Impugned order the D.D.C. allotted Plot No, 344/1 to the opposite parties in their Chak No. 173 and shifted the Chak of the petitioner which was allotted on his original holding 344/1 on plot Nos. 545, 543 and 544 which originally belonged to the opposite parties. The petitioner says that Chak was arbitrarily shifted which is against Section 19 of the Act. That plot No. 344/1 had 60 paise valuation which was a higher valuation. That allotment of this Chak is as 'Udan Chak and it was the third Chak of the petitioner. The petition has been contested and the main case is that the trees standing on plot No. 344/1 belonged to the opposite parties.
4. C. H. Form No. 2A shows that plot Nos. 344/1 and 344/2 both belonged to the petitioner. Needless to say that C. H. Form No. 2A is prepared under Rule 21 of the Rules framed under the Act. Rule 21 runs as follows :
21. Sections 8, 54 (2) (d). After the test and verification of the annual register as prescribed in Rules 19, 20 and 20A) a field-to-field partal of all the plots shall be carried out by the Consolidator in association with the Consolidation Committee and as many tenure-holders of the village as he can collect and the result shall be noted by him in Khasra Chakbandi in C. H. Form 2A. The mistakes and disputes discovered during the partal shall also simultaneously be noted in the appropriate columns of the list of mistakes and disputes in land records in C.H. Form 4."
5. A reading of the Rule shows that this Akar Patra is prepared after the test and verification of the annual registers and a field-to-field partal of all the plots and then it is noted in khosra of Chakbandi. The mistakes and disputes discovered during the partal are simutaneously noted in the appropriate columns, etc. There is nothing to show that anybody else except the petitioners was the owner of these plot Nos. 344/1 and 344/2. This Partal in C. H. Form 2A also shows that there is a tubewell on plot No. 344/2. It is admitted to the parties that trees are standing on plot No. 344/1. It may be noted that, firstly opposite party No. 2 had filed objections praying for allotment of his Chak on plot No. 144. The Consolidation Officer accepted and allotted plot No. 144 and the prayer was accepted. However, the appeal was filed before the Settlement Officer, Consolidation, taking up a case that plot No, 344/1 be also given to opposite party in his Chak. The Settlement Officer, Consolidation upheld the order of the Consolidation Officer and dismissed the appeal. It was argued on behalf of the petitioner that the S. O. C. had dismissed the appeal and reference was also made in this appeal in respect of plot No. 344. So virtually the argument regarding plot No. 344 of opposite parties was rejected in appeal. The D.D.C. in the Impugned order observed that Sarjoo Prasad, opposite party No. 2 was claiming plot No. 344 also on the ground that the trees were standing on the plot. The D.D.C. observed that the villagers told him that the trees were planted by the revisionist/opposite party in the petition and allotted part of plot No. 344/1 in the Chak of Sarjoo Prasad, etc. and took out this plot No. 344/1 which had originally been allotted in the first Chak of Hausila Prasad, petitioner. It was argued that the D.D.C. could not have done it in a revision under Section 48 of C.H. Act. For this reliance was placed on the case decided by this Court in the matter of Udai Prakash v. Deputy Director of Consolidation, Bahraich and others, 1998 (16) LCD 1334, in which it was held that for allowing the revision, finding has to be recorded that the proceedings (held by subordinate consolidation authorities) were either not regular or that the impugned orders were incorrect, illegal or improper. It was further held that the revisional court without recording the said findings had no Jurisdiction to interfere with the orders passed by the authorities below. Section 48 (1) runs as follows :
"48. Revision and reference.--(1) The Director of Consolidation may call for and examine the record of any case decided or proceedings taken by any subordinate authority for the purpose of satisfying himself as to the regularity of the proceedings ; or as to the correctness, legality or propriety of any order (other than interlocutory order) passed by such authority in the case or proceedings, may, after allowing the parties concerned an opportunity of being heard, make such order in the case or proceedings as he thinks fit."
6. A reading of the said Section shows that before setting aside the order of the Settlement Officer. Consolidation, the Deputy Director should have satisfied himself as to the correctness, legality or propriety of the order sought to be revised. In the impugned order, the Deputy Director, Consolidation did not at all give any reason as to why the order of the S.O.C. was incorrect or was illegal. Moreover, in the instant case, the revisional court appears to have not applied his mind at all to the fact that plot No. 344/1 did not belong to Sarjoo Prasad but actually belonged to the petitioner who had trees thereon and who had also the source of his irrigation on plot No. 344/2 which is a part of plot No. 344/1.
7. Learned counsel for the opposite parties was unable to show as to how the revisional court was convinced that the trees were planted by the opposite parties because, as has been found above, the record was speaking otherwise, and it was showing that the land belongs to the petitioner. Sub-section (5) of Section 3 of the Act defines the land as follows :
"(5) 'Land' means land held or occupied for purposes connected with agriculture, horticulture and animal husbandry (including pisciculture and poultry farming) and includes :
(iii) valuation of plots, trees, wells and other improvements, where the question is sought to be raised by a tenure-holder of the plot or the owner of the trees, well or other improvements recorded in the annual register under Section 10.
relating to the consolidation area, (which has been raised under Section 9 or which might or ought to have been raised under that Section), but has not been so raised, shall be raised or heard at any subsequent stage of the consolidation proceedings."
This means that questions in respect of claims land (which includes trees as per definition of the land) relating to the consolidation area shall not be raised or heard at any subsequent stage of the consolidation proceedings. The objections shall be deemed to have been raised according to the above definition. Therefore, the allotment of plot No. 344/1 in the Chak of the opposite parties on the ground that villagers Informed the revisional authority that the trees belonging to the opposite parties was also against the bar created under Section 11A of the Act. So the order of the revisional authority was wrong on this ground also.
9. Section 19 (1) (e) and (f) so far as they are relevant to the argument of the parties runs as follows :
"19. Conditions to be fulfilled by a Consolidation scheme.--(1) A consolidation scheme shall fulfil the following conditions, namely :
(a) .....
(f) every tenure-holder is, as far as possible, allotted the plot on which exists his private source of irrigation or any other improvement, together with an area in the vicinity equal to the valuation of the plots originally held by him there ; and
(g) .....
The order of the D.D.C. amounted to the non-compliance of conditions (e) and (f) both. The compact area of plot No. 344/1 was splitted and another Udan Chak was allotted. Similarly on plot No. 344/2. there exists private source of irrigation which was also distanced by allotting part of plot No. 344/1 to the opposite parties. Therefore, there was violation and non-compliance of provisions of clauses (e) and (f) of sub-section (1) of Section 19. Actually the order of the Deputy Director of Consolidation is quite arbitrary. The impugned order is, therefore, wrong. The D.D.C. passed the order under challenge without requisite findings ignoring the provisions of Section 48, and moreover passed a wrong order. Therefore, the order under challenge has to be set aside and writ petition has to be allowed. The writ petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 30.8.97 in respect of petitioner's Chak No. 344/1 detailed above is quashed. The Deputy Director of Consolidation is directed to modify the previous Chak allotted to the petitioner and allot the old Chak on his original holding as it existed prior to the passing of the Impugned order. The consequential changes shall be permissible in the Chak to be allotted by this modification to the opposite parties.