JUDGMENT Shitla Prasad Srivastava, J.
1. This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioners quashing the order dated 24.9.1994 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Meerut in Revision No. 617 of 1991.
2. The brief facts, as stated in the petition, are that the petitioners were proposed Chak No. 192 and the respondent No. 2. Dharam Singh, was proposed Chak No. 503 during the preparation of Provisional Consolidation Scheme under the Consolidation of Holdings Act-Petitioner's holdings consist of Plots No. 3605, 3606, 3607, 3608, 3609, 3610, 3611 and 3613. According to the petitioners, the exchange ratio of these plots was 100 paise per hectare. It is stated by the petitioners that these plots, mentioned above.
were adjacent to the petitioners' residential house and their ghar was in plot No. 3600. The share of the petitioners was 1/3 in the aforesaid plots. It is further stated that the respondent No. 2, Dharam Singh, had 1/3 share in the plots mentioned above except the ghar, i.e., plot No. 3600. It is further stated by the petitioners that the share of Beg Raj, father of respondent No. 2, was 1/3 in the aforesaid plots and after the death of his father, it devolved upon his four brothers, namely, Babu, Bhagwat, Janam Singh and respondent No. 2. Therefore, the share of the petitioners is only 1/12 in the aforesaid plots. Bhagwat Singh, one of the brother of the respondent No. 2, filed an objection under Section 20 of the aforesaid Act. On his objection, the entire chak, as proposed by the Assistant Consolidation Officer was disturbed. The Consolidation Officer did not propose to allot any plot to the petitioners of 100 paise exchange ratio nor any chak was given to the petitioners near abadi. The petitioners filed an appeal against the order of the Consolidation Officer. The Settlement Officer. Consolidation modified the order of the Consolidation Officer and allotted plot No. 3613 of 100 paise per hectare exchange ratio. Although the share of the petitioners at this place was about 72 paise of valuation but the petitioners were not given 100 paise valuation or 90 paise valuation. The respondent No. 2, Dharam Singh, filed a revision against the order of the Settlement Officer. Consolidation. The Deputy Director of Consolidation excluded single plot of 100 paise exchange ratio allotted to the petitioners by the Settlement Officer, Consolidation, i.e., plot No. 3613 and took away land of more than 22 paise valuation out of his chak on plot Nos. 3770, 3768, etc. and in lieu of these plots, the Deputy Director of Consolidation, allotted land of 44.853 paise valuation at plot Nos. 311, 314, 315, 316, 317, etc. Two revisions were filed. One by Dharam Singh against Khacheru Singh, father of the petitioners and other by Brahma Singh against Madan Singh and these two revisions were decided by common judgment. The petitioners have challenged this order of the Dy. Director of Consolidation by means of the present writ petition.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners has urged that petitioner's valuation in plot Nos. 313 and 314 was only of 15 paise. But as plots No. 1920 and 2098 were also near to plot Nos. 313 and 314 and the petitioner held land of 40 paise valuation in these plots, therefore, the Deputy Director of Consolidation allotted land of 45 paise valuation in plot Nos. 313 and 314, which is neither legal nor equitable. It has been urged that the distance between plot Nos. 2099, 2098, 2100 and 1900 are not nearer to plot Nos. 313 and 314 rather they arc at a distance of about 2 Kms. from plot Nos. 313 and 314. Therefore, the finding recorded by the Deputy Director of Consolidation is perverse. Further argument of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that plot No. 1920 does not belong to the petitioners and total valuation of plot Nos. 2098, 2099, 1900 and 1921 is only 17.46 paise valuation. In this way also the finding given by the Deputy Director of Consolidation is incorrect. Learned counsel for the petitioners has further urged that when the respondent No. 2 has claimed that out of his chak at plot Nos. 313 and 314 land of 22 paise valuation should be allotted to the petitioners in lieu of equal valuation out of plot Nos. 3613 and 3614 to be included in his chak then the Deputy Director of Consolidation committed mistake in adjusting the chak of the petitioners according to the valuation. The ultimate argument of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the petitioners have been deprived of their entire land of 100 paise and 90 paise exchange ratio near their abadi, which is arbitrary and inquitable.
4. Sri N. C. Rajvanshi, learned senior advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent No. 2, Dharam Singh, has urged that admittedly the petitioners and the contesting respondents were co-sharers in these plots having different shares and while making allotment equity has been adjusted between the co-sharers by the Deputy Director of Consolidation. It is not always possible to fulfill the desire of the tenure-holders in the allotment of chak proceeding. Therefore, there is no infirmity, illegality or jurisdlctional error in the judgment of the Deputy Director of Consolidation. He has further submitted that the original chak No. 192 did not belong to the petitioners but it was allotted to Khacheru Singh, father of the petitioners and Khacheru Singh alone filed appeal in which respondent No. 2 Dharam Singh, was respondent No. 4 and his three brothers were respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3. In that appeal no relief was claimed against the respondent No. 2, Dharam Singh. Rather the relief was claimed against Bhagwat and Babu, Lila Singh, petitioner No. 1, was having separate chak from his father, Nanak Singh, petitioner No- 2, was not having any chak. Respondent No. 2, Dharam Singh, filed a Revision in which petitioners' father was also arrayed as respondent No. 2 along with his three brothers. After the death of Khacheru, during the pendency of the revision, petitioners were brought on record. By his impugned judgment the Deputy Director of Consolidation has affected the chafe of Har Nandan Singh but he has not been impleaded as party and none of the brothers of the respondent No. 2, who were party before the revisional court have been impleaded in the present writ petition, therefore, the petition suffers from non-Joinder of necessary parties. It is further submitted that total valuation of chak of Khacheru Singh is 194.585 paise. Petitioner No. 1 has a valuation of 29.148 paise while respondent No. 2 having small share and is only holding of 83 paise valuation of chak and as he is co-sharer no injustice has been done to the petitioners in making allotment. He has further urged that while making the allotment of chaks it is always to be seen what is possible and what is not possible and if the Deputy Director of Consolidation, who is final authority, has come to the conclusion, keeping in view the shares of the parties, who are co-
sharers there is no error apparent on the face of the record, therefore, the writ petition has no force.
5. Sri V. B. L. Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioners in support of his contention has placed reliance on the point of jurisdiction of the revisional authority under Section 48 of the Consolidation of Holdings Act. His submission is that the revlsional authority cannot start to the appreciation of evidence like the appellate authority. For that purpose he has placed reliance on a case in Ram Autar and others v. Ram Dhani and others, (1977) 2 SCC 263 and another case in Ram Dular v. Deputy Director of Consolidation, Jaunpur and others. 1994 RD 290, which is the Judgment of Supreme Court. The decision is on the jurisdiction of the Deputy Director of Consolidation under Section 48 of the Consolidation of Holdings Act where the Court held that it is clear that the Director has power to satisfy himself as to the legality of the proceedings or as to the correctness of the proceedings or correctness, legality or propriety of any order other than interlocutory order passed by the authorities under the Act. But in considering the correctness, legality or propriety of the order or correctness of the proceedings or regularity thereof it cannot assume to itself the jurisdiction of the original authority as a fact finding authority by appreciating for itself of those facts de novo. It has to consider whether the legally admissible evidence had not been considered by the authorities in recording a finding of fact or law or the conclusion reached by it is based on no evidence, any patent illegality or impropriety had been committed or there was any procedural irregularity, which goes to the rest of the matter, had been committed in recording the order of finding.
6. In reply, learned counsel for the respondent Sri N. C. Rajvanshi has submitted that now the Deputy Director of Consolidation has jurisdiction when the record has been summoned by him to see as to whether there is any illegality and correctness in the order passed by the Consolidation authorities or not. Therefore, the Deputy Director of Consolidation has not only jurisdiction to see the irregularity or illegality but he has also jurisdiction to assess the evidence, if any, and in reversing !he finding of fact also.
7. 1 have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the judgment of the Deputy Director of Consolidation. The Deputy Director of Consolidation vide Order dated 24.9.1994 has allowed both the revisions and has made adjustment between the parties keeping in view their respective shares on the plots and valuation. There is no error apparent on the face of the record nor there is any jurisdictional error because in the consolidation proceeding, principle for the allotment of chafe is only based on the principle as far as possible. The Deputy Director of Consolidation being final authority on the subject has done whatever was possible under the law. The judgment does not suffer from any error of law or error apparent on the face of the record or error of jurisdiction.
8. In the result, the writ petition has no merit and it is accordingly dismissed. There will be no orders as to costs.