(1) Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
(2) This petition has been filed by the petitioner praying for quashing of the order dated 30.07.2019 passed by the Dy. Director of Consolidation, Lakhimpur Kheri, and the order dated 15.02.2019 passed by the Settlement Officer, Consolidation, Kheri.
(3) It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner had a share in at least 20 plots of land but since the share was small his actual holding was only 1.018 Hectare. The ACO had taken a share of Plot Nos.138 Min, 139 Min and 144 Min. and allotted a Chak of 0.929 Hectare to the petitioner. However, both Plot Nos.138 and 144 being low lying land, the petitioner filed an objection under Section 20 that he may be given maximum share in his original Plot No.356 on the western part of the said plot. The Consolidation Officer, partly admitted his objection but at the same time, instead of giving western part of side 356 he gave a small part in the center of the said plot and in the second Chak some part of Plot Nos.355, 357 was also included. On the western side of Plot No.356 an Udaan Chak was given to Chak holder of 154 Smt. Prabha Choudhary D/o Amar Choudhary and on the eastern part of Plot No.356, Udaan of chak holder 322 Shiv Bhagwan S/o Indrapal was also allotted.
(4) The petitioner being aggrieved against the order passed by the Consolidation Officer on 28.11.2018 filed an Appeal before the SOC where he requested that his original Plot No.356 be given to him on the western side which was adjacent to the road. However, the SOC rejected his Appeal by the order impugned with the observation that in case the petitioner is given Plot No.356 as prayed by him, several other Chak holders shall be affected who have not been impleaded in the Appeal as respondents. It was also observed by the SOC that the Chak that have been given to the petitioner, were of his original plots and the valuation thereof also was more than the initial valuation of Rs.83.61. The petitioner being aggrieved against such order filed a Revision in which he impleaded not only Shiv Bhagwan but also Smt. Prabha Choudhary Chak holders who had been given the eastern and western part of the Plot No.356 respectively in the allotment made by the Consolidation Officer. All parties were heard but the Revision has been rejected without taking into account that Plot No.139 on which one of the Chaks of the petitioners had been allotted was a low lying land which was covered with water most of the time of the year. Moreover, the Revisional Court also did not consider that the Plot No.356 which formed part of the original holding of the petitioner had been given to two unrelated persons as Udaan Chaks.
(5) Learned Standing Counsel, on the other hand, has submitted that from a perusal of the Appeal of the petitioner, it is evident that the arguments that have been made before this Court, were not placed before the Appellate or the Revisional Court at all. The petitioner had not impleaded the Chak holders who are likely to be affected in case his prayer was granted by the SOC, he had only impleaded Shiv Bhagwan, therefore, the Appeal has been rejected.
(6) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that taking into account the lapse on his part the petitioner had tried to remove the shortcomings by impleading Smt. Prabha Choudhary also in the Revision as respondent.
(7) It has been submitted that under Section 48 (3) of the Act and the explanation attached thereto, the Revisional Court was empower to hear all parties and take evidence and then decide the matter but he has summarily dismissed the Revision without making all effort to really go into the root of the matter.
(8) The order dated 30.07.2019 is set aside. The matter is remanded to the Revisional Court, the Dy. Director of Consolidation, Lakhimpur Kheri, who shall consider and decide the same afresh after giving proper opportunity of hearing to all parties concerned.
(9) It is however, clarified that the petitioner's arguments be limited only to the Arguments/Pleadings /Grounds taken in the Revision and he may not be allowed to argue his matter as if it was a fresh matter and improve upon his grounds.
(10) This writ petition stands partly allowed.
Order Date :- 28.11.2019 PAL