JUDGMENT Poonam Srivastava, J.
1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.
2. The dispute in the instant writ petition is regarding allotment of chak after completion of the consolidation proceedings. It is an admitted fact that there was partition between the ancestors of the petitioner and respondent No. 6 long before the commencement of the consolidation operation In the basic year, the respondent no 6 Doodh Nath was was recorded over several plots of Khata No, 30 including plot No. 212-and Plot No 242M. whereas the petitioner and his brother Sita Ram stood recorded over several plots of Khata No. 115 including plot No. 212/1. The entire share of plot No. 242M was transferred by means of a sale deed by the petitioner to six different persons but the entire area of plot No. 212/1 having an area of 12 Bissau was retained by him. The plot No. 212/1 and plot No. 212/2 were two different plots which was situated adjacent to Jigra Hargarh Road, each having an area of 12 Bissau. When the consolidation authorities prepared a proposal at the stage of carving out chaks, the Assistant Settlement Officer Consolidation allotted the petitioner a chak on his original holding, plot No. 212/1. An area of 3 Bissau was taken away for the road but the entire chak of 9 Bissau was proposed at the stage of Assistant Settlement Officer Consolidation in favour of the petitioner. The respondent No. 6 Doodh Nath sold off part of 212/2 which was recorded in his name as his original holding, to respondent Nos. 4 and 5. The respondent No. 6 sold off an area of 4 Bissau of his share of plot No 212/2 to Basdeo where he has constructed his residential house adjacent to the road, 3 Bissau land to Smt. Balraji and Ram Narain. The remaining part of the plot No. 212/2 was left with Doodh Nath and a chak was carved out. After the aforesaid sale, the respondents filed their objections before the Consolidation Officer which was allowed vide order dated 14.8.1981 A copy of the said order is annexed as Annexure-1 to the writ petition. The order of the Consolidation Officer was challenged by the petitioner before the Settlement Officer Consolidation by filing an appeal, which was dismissed on 30.9.1981. The petitioner preferred a revision before the Deputy Director of Consolidation which stood dismissed vide order dated 27 12.1982. All the three orders are impugned in the instant writ petition.
3. The submission on behalf of the petitioner is that the Consolidation Officer allowed the objection without giving any notice to the petitioner and without assigning any reason, the chak of the petitioner was divided into two chaks and an area of 4 biswa and 17 dhoor was taken out from his original plot No. 121/1 and an Uran Chak was given which was altogether different from his original holding. The Settlement Officer Consolidation also failed to appreciate that the contesting respondents were vendees of the respondent No. 6 Doodh Math. If any adjustment was to be made, it should have been made from his chak as the sale deed was executed between the respondents intersee and chak of the petitioner should not have been interfered whatsoever. Counsel for the petitioner also submits that the Settlement Officer Consolidation recorded a finding in favour of Doodh Nath on misreading of facts and on an assumption that the petitioner is owner of plot No. 242 whereas admittedly it was sold off much before the proceedings for allotment of chak commenced. In fact an area of 10 biswa of plot No. 242 is in the name of Doodh Nath respondent, Learned Counsel for the petitioner has tried to substantiate his arguments from CH Form 23 which has been brought on record by means of supplementary affidavit. Sri Awadhesh Singh while assailing the order of the Deputy Director of Consolidation has emphatically argued that he has tried to carve out altogether a new case on the basis that there was a private partition between the petitioner and respondent no 6. The assertion in the order of the revisional court that the plot No. 212 went in the share of Doodh Nath and 242 on the basis of "Bhanna Batwara" is altogether a new case, specially for the benefit of the contesting respondents. The consolidation authorities completely overlooked the fact that the plot no, 212/2 was the exclusive holding of the respondent No. 6 which was subsequently sold after taking permission from the Settlement Officer Consolidation and, therefore, if all any adjustment was to be made, it was to be made between the vendor Doodh Nath and vendees respondent DOS. 4 and 5 intersee.
4. Counsel for the contesting respondents has tried to support the orders of the consolidation authorities and emphatically stated that the findings arrived a! are concurrent finding of fact. The Consolidation Officer has made spot inspection and only then rejected the claim of the petitioner and in these circumstances, the orders should not be interfered whatsoever. In the counter affidavit, it is asserted on behalf of the contesting respondents that the petitioner had nothing to do with the plot No. 212/1, 212/2 and 212/3. Besides, it is submitted that the consolidation authorities have only made adjustment and tried to ensure that the subsequent vendees who had purchased the plot on the road side specifically for constructing the house are not deprived and, therefore, it does not call for any interference.
5. I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties at length and perused the record. 1 have also perused the supplementary affidavit. The sale deed dated 4.7.1962 is annexed as Annexure-SA-1, which shows that plot No. 212/2 was sold off by Doodh Nath alone and Annexure-SA-2 is CH Form 2A. Perusal of the same makes it evident that the name of Raja Ram, petitioner is recorded in plot No. 212/1, whereas CH Form 23 also supports the contention of the petitioner to the effect that the plot No 242 is in the name of the respondent Doodh Nath. Besides, perusal or the three orders also makes it clear that varied reasoning are given by the consolidation authorities at three different stages, only with a view to reject the claim of the petitioner. The Consolidation Officer has only recorded his conclusion without any reason. The Settlement Officer Consolidation has based his decision on wrong fact which is not supported from the documents. The only reason assigned is that the appeal is without any basis and, therefore, it is being rejected, whereas the Deputy Director of Consolidation has carved out a case of mutual partition between Doodh Nath and the petitioner Raja Ram, which is absolutely a new case without any pleadings to the said effect. The authorities below have also failed to consider the equities. The contesting respondent Nos. 4 and 5 had purchased the part of plot No. 212/2 having full knowledge that in case their respective areas are separated, the situation of all the plots will never be on the road side unless and until the adjacent plot of the petitioner is disturbed. It is also evident that no cogent reason has been given to disturb the chak of the petitioner from his original holding.
6. Reliance has been placed on various decisions of this Court. Chhedi Lal v. Deputy Director, Consolidation and Ors., 2004(96) RD, 619. This Court had ruled that the guidelines contained in the Government Order dated 26.5.1981 are to be strictly adhered to as it has been enacted in confirmation and to give effect to the intention of the Act and the provisions of Section 19. 1 have perused the said Government Order and on a close examination of the orders of the consolidation authorities, impugned in the writ petition, I am satisfied that the orders have not been passed in accordance with law and without considering the specific objection. This Court had set aside the order of the consolidation authorities on the ground that no reasons were recorded for declining to allot the area demanded by the petitioner of his original holding, which stood by the road side. In absence of any valid reason to decline the request of the petitioner., the order was held to be unsustainable in law and consequently was set aside. In another writ petition, Nathunee and Ors. v. Deputy Director of Consolidation, Ghazipur and Anr., 2005(98) RD 92, the Court had quashed the order of the Consolidation authority as the impugned orders in the said writ petition were without application of mind and without assigning any appropriate reason and considering the comparative hardship, which was to be faced by the parties. The authorities having failed to take into consideration this aspect, the order stood vitiated in law. Similar view has been expressed in the case of Rajendra Singh and Ors. v. Deputy Director of Consolidation and Ors. 2005 (99) RD, 46. For a ready reference, paragraph 8 of the said judgment is quoted below:
A perusal of the impugned order of the Deputy Director of Consolidation goes to show that no reason has been recorded by the Deputy Director of Consolidation. The only reason recorded for allowing the revision is that claim made by the revisionists respondents herein} is genuine. Apart from that there is no discussion by the Deputy Director of Consolidation about the claim of the parties nor any other reason has been given. The specific objection of the petitioners that order of Settlement Officer, Consolidation is based on the basis of compromise between the parties, though has been noted by the Deputy Director of Consolidation but no finding has been returned on the said issue. It was incumbent upon him to have considered (he fact whether the order of the Settlement Officer, Consolidation was based on compromise between the parties or not. He was also required to consider the case of the petition before reaching to any conclusion. A perusal of the judgment also indicates that no spot inspection was done by the Deputy Director of Consolidation. The allegation of the contesting respondents that they have been allotted a multi-cornered chak could have been easily verified by the Deputy Director of Consolidation by making a spot inspection which he failed to do so.
7. In the instant case, the orders challenged in the writ petition failed to give any adequate reason for declining the claim of the petitioner, who was admittedly allotted a chak on his original holding initially, which was altered subsequently after the sale deed was executed by the respondent No. 6.
8. In the facts and circumstances, the orders of the consolidation authorities can not be left to stand. The writ petition is allowed. The orders dated 14,8.1981, 30.9.1981 and 27.12.1982 are hereby quashed and the case is remanded to the Settlement Officer Consolidation for afresh decision after giving an opportunity to the respective parties and taking into consideration all the aspects of the matter discussed above.