# Bangali v. Asst. Director Consolidation Ghazipur & Ors

- **Citation:** (2020) 2 ILRA 153
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2019-11-16
- **Case number:** Writ B No. 7677 of 1987
- **Bench:** J.J. Munir
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/bangali-v-asst-director-consolidation-ghazipur-ors-45190
- **Pages:** 10

## Headnote

A. U.P C&H Act-Challenging-revisional order-
completely altering and reducing-area of
petitioner's chak-manifestly illegal-as it makescryptic redetermination of chaks-w/o assigning
reasons-depriving
petitioner-of
his
original
holdings-Petition Allowed.

B. Held, this Court does not intend to say that
in appropriate circumstances, the subordinate
Authorities with the permission of the Director
of Consolidation or the Deputy Director of
Consolidation cannot reduce the area beyond 25%
or the Deputy Director cannot in fit cases exercise
that power. However, before that power to reduce
the area beyond 25% is exercised, even by the
Deputy Director, there must be valid reasons
assigned to take this drastic step. In this case, no
such reasons have been assigned. It is the last limb
of the submissions of Sri Arun Kumar, learned
counsel for the petitioner that the area of Chak
holder No. 714 has been increased from 6.96 acres
to 9.24 acres whereas his area has been reduced
from 10.88 acres to 7.10 acres. It is a very
inequitable adjustment of Chaks, done by the
Deputy Director of Consolidation. This submission is
not required to be gone into by this Court, in view of
what has already been said above. The submission
of Sri Santosh Kumar Singh on the other hand that
no prejudice to the petitioner has been caused,
inasmuch as, he has been provided a Chak that is
not far flung from his original holding, does not
appeal to this Court for reasons of the indicated
prejudice that has been caused to the petitioner. In
the result, this writ petition succeeds and his
allowed. The impugned order dated 09.04.1987
passed by the Assistant Director of Consolidation,
Ghazipur Camp Office Bareilly in Revision No. 362 is
hereby quashed. The Revision shall stand restored
to
the
file
of
the
concerned
Assistant
Director/Deputy Director of Consolidation, who will
determine it afresh after hearing both parties in
accordance with law. Both parties will appear before
the
District
Deputy
Director
of
Consolidation/Collector, Ballia on 09.12.2019.

List of case cited: -

## Text

2 All. Bangali Vs. Asst. Director of Consolidation Ghazipur & Ors.
153
Deputy
Director
of
Consolidation,
Azamgarh in Revision No. 251, Ram
Badan vs. Ram Murat and others is hereby
quashed. It is further ordered that the
entire area of Khasra No. 60/3 (old) shall
be included in the petitioner's chak which
already carries the remainder area of the
aforesaid plot. Necessary adjustment to
parties Chaks shall be made by the Deputy
Director of Consolidation. There there
shall be no order as to costs.
----------
(2020)02ILR A153

ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 16.11.2019

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE J.J. MUNIR, J.

Writ B No. 7677 of 1987

Bangali ...Petitioner
Versus
Asst. Director Consolidation Ghazipur &
Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri R.S. Misra, Sri Arun Kumar, Sri R.P. Mishra

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri T.D. Singh, Sri Abhishek Kumar, Sri
Jagdish Lal, Sri Kirtika Pande, S.C.,
Santosh Kumar Singh, Sri T.D. Singh

A. U.P C&H Act-Challenging-revisional order-
completely altering and reducing-area of
petitioner's chak-manifestly illegal-as it makescryptic redetermination of chaks-w/o assigning
reasons-depriving
petitioner-of
his
original
holdings-Petition Allowed.

B. Held, this Court does not intend to say that
in appropriate circumstances, the subordinate
Authorities with the permission of the Director
of Consolidation or the Deputy Director of
Consolidation cannot reduce the area beyond 25%
or the Deputy Director cannot in fit cases exercise
that power. However, before that power to reduce
the area beyond 25% is exercised, even by the
Deputy Director, there must be valid reasons
assigned to take this drastic step. In this case, no
such reasons have been assigned. It is the last limb
of the submissions of Sri Arun Kumar, learned
counsel for the petitioner that the area of Chak
holder No. 714 has been increased from 6.96 acres
to 9.24 acres whereas his area has been reduced
from 10.88 acres to 7.10 acres. It is a very
inequitable adjustment of Chaks, done by the
Deputy Director of Consolidation. This submission is
not required to be gone into by this Court, in view of
what has already been said above. The submission
of Sri Santosh Kumar Singh on the other hand that
no prejudice to the petitioner has been caused,
inasmuch as, he has been provided a Chak that is
not far flung from his original holding, does not
appeal to this Court for reasons of the indicated
prejudice that has been caused to the petitioner. In
the result, this writ petition succeeds and his
allowed. The impugned order dated 09.04.1987
passed by the Assistant Director of Consolidation,
Ghazipur Camp Office Bareilly in Revision No. 362 is
hereby quashed. The Revision shall stand restored
to
the
file
of
the
concerned
Assistant
Director/Deputy Director of Consolidation, who will
determine it afresh after hearing both parties in
accordance with law. Both parties will appear before
the
District
Deputy
Director
of
Consolidation/Collector, Ballia on 09.12.2019.

List of case cited: -

1. Asbaran vs. DDC and another, 1986 RD 430

2. Shri Nath vs. D.D.C., Sultanpur reported in
1986 RD 209

3. Sheo Pal vs. Basu Deo & others, 2017 (135) RD 335

4. Union of India v. Mohan Lal Capoor
MANU/SC/0405/1973 : (1973) 2 SCC 836

5. Rajvinder Singh vs. Deputy Director of
Consolidation, 2014 (123) RD 76

6. Arjun vs. Deputy Director of Consolidation
Faizabad and another, 2015 (129) RD 205

7. Gulab Chandra vs. DDC, 2019 (143) RD 783
154 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
8. Haridas and others v. Deputy Director of
Consolidation and another 2005 (98) RD 593
(Delivered by Hon'ble J.J. Munir, J.)

1. This writ petition seeks to impugn
an order dated 09.04.1987, passed by the
Assistant
Director
of
Consolidation,
Ghazipur, Camp Office, Ballia in Revision
No. 362. The petitioner is chak holder No.
666, whereas contesting respondent Nos. 2
to 9 are all chak holders no. 714. The
petitioner
had
an
original
holding,
comprising 88 plot numbers admeasuring
a total of 12.83 acres, of which after
excluding Chakout land, the area that was
in hand of the Consolidation Authorities,
is a figure of 10.88 acres. The petitioner
was proposed two Chaks by the Assistant
Consolidation Officer. The first Chak
comprised 20 plots with an area of 4.31
acres. This Chak included seven plots
from the original holding of the petitioner.
The second Chak, proposed, carried 12
plots with an area of 3.37 acres, where
four plots came from the original holding.

2. It is the petitioner's case that he filed
no objections and was satisfied with the
proposal.
The
contesting
respondents,
however, filed objections under Section 20 of
the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act (for
short, the 'Act') against the ACO's proposal. On
the basis of those objections Case Nos. 2011
and
2100
were
registered
before
the
Consolidation Officer, Khadsara, District
Ballia. The objections filed by respondent Nos.
2 to 9 that were registered as Case No. 2011
were rejected but objections that gave rise to
Case No. 2100 were partly allowed, granting a
reduction of value of land allotted to
respondent Nos.2 to 9, leading to an increase in
area on their original holding.

3. Aggrieved, respondent Nos. 2 to 9
filed an Appeal to the Settlement Officer
of Consolidation, where it was registered
as Appeal No. 558. Respondent Nos. 5 to
9 claimed relief of further reduction in
value and allotment of a chak on their
original holding, that would include plot
Nos. 3248 and 3260.

4. The Appeal aforesaid came to be
partly
allowed,
vide
order
dated
24.03.1981, in terms that valuation of Plot
No. 499/2 admeasuring 11 links was
reduced in value from 10 annas to 7
annas. The resultant increase in area was
made part of a third Chak allotted to
respondent Nos. 2 to 9.

5. The grievance of respondent Nos. 2
to 9, that still survived was that they were
not given a Chak on their original holding,
comprising Plot Nos. 3248, 3260 and 3033.
The respondents, therefore, went up in
Revision before the Deputy Director of
Consolidation, after a delay of six years
applying for condonation. The Revision was
numbered as 362. It was consolidated with
Revision Nos. 360 and 145/402 by the
Deputy Director of Consolidation and
decided by a common judgment and order
dated 09.04.1987, treating Revision No.
145/402 as the leading case. The said
Revision was allowed by the order last
mentioned, and hereinafter referred to as the
'impugned order' in terms that the contesting
respondents
were
given
one
Chak
admeasuring 4.31 acres, a second chak
admeasuring 2.79 acres, and a third of 1.14
acres.

6. The petitioner's first Chak as
carved out by the Settlement Officer of
Consolidation was almost completely
altered and reduced in area, though with an
increase in one plot number in the manner
that all the original holding of the
petitioner, comprising seven plots, were
2 All. Bangali Vs. Asst. Director of Consolidation Ghazipur & Ors.
155
taken away and entered in the contesting
respondent's Chak, and the area of the
petitioner's chak was reduced from 4.31
acres, as determined by the Settlement
Officer of Consolidation, to an area of 3.56
acres. The original holding that was taken out
of the petitioner's Chak includes Plot Nos.
3033/10, 3033/11, 3033/17, 3033/18, 3244,
3245 and 2246. All these plots comprising
original holding of the petitioner went to the
contesting respondents and made part of their
Chak admeasuring 4.31 acres. The second
Chak of the petitioner was not altered much,
except that some area in two plot numbers
was increased in order to adjust the loss in
area of the first Chak. The area of the second
Chak was increased from 3.31 to 3.54 acres.

7. Heard Sri Arun Kumar, learned
counsel for the petitioner, Sri Santosh
Kumar Singh, learned counsel appearing
for respondent Nos. 7 to 9 and Sri Satish
Mohan Tiwari, learned Standing Counsel
appearing on behalf of respondent No. 1.

8. The submission of the learned
counsel for the petitioner is that the
impugned order passed by the Deputy
Director of Consolidation is manifestly
illegal, inasmuch as it makes a cryptic redetermination of Chaks without assigning
reasons why it has made that drastic an
alteration where the petitioner has been
deprived of all his original holding, in his
first Chak. It is argued by Sri Arun Kumar
that the Deputy Director of Consolidation
despite his wide powers under the newly
added 3rd Explanation to Section 48 of the
Act, is still a Court of Revision, who must
deal with what has been determined by the
two Authorities below. He must, for
reasons
howsoever
briefly
recorded,
reverse or affirm their findings and bring
about a recarvation of Chaks, if he has to
do that, for intelligible reasons.

9. It is argued that the impugned
order does not do that; it just orders a
rejigging of the two Chaks much to the
prejudice of the petitioner where all his
original holding has been excluded and
given to Chak holder No. 714, who are
respondent nos. 2 to 9 here. It is further
argued that the first Chak carried the
largest part of the petitioner's original
holding and what the Deputy Director of
Consolidation has done on recarvation of it
in Revision is to place the petitioner at a
completely different location, giving him a
flying Chak. Learned counsel, however,
hastens to add that his Chak as carved out
by the Deputy Director of Consolidation is
located adjacent to his original holding.
Still he says that the order prejudices him
much because he has been completely
removed from whatever comprised the
largest part of his original holding.

10. It is also urged that the first Chak
that
has
been
allotted
to
him
is
asymmetrical. It is not rectangulated but is
'L' shaped. He has invited the attention of
the Court to a supplementary affidavit
filed by the respondent, dated 24th
January, 2011 to which a sketch map of
the relative location of Chaks allotted to
the parties here, is shown. Indeed, Chak
No. 666 after recarvation by the Deputy
Director of Consolidation, is a 'L' shaped
plot which by the Settlement Officer's
determination, was a well rectangulated
and compact area. It is also argued that the
petitioner's area comprising his first Chak,
which was his largest, has been reduced,
whereas that of the contesting respondents
has been increased with no corresponding
adjustment of equities between parties.

11. It is further argued by Sri Arun
Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner
that on a juxtaposition of the total area the
156 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
petitioner has in hand, in consequence of
the impugned order, there is a decrease by
more than 35%. The original holding of
the petitioner, as already said, was an area
of 10.88 acres, whereas the holding
comprising the two Chaks in terms of the
impugned order, is a total area of 7.10
acres. It is emphasized that a decrease in
area by more than 25% is frowned upon
under the Act, and it is for this reason that
the Consolidation Authorities have been
forbidden from reducing the consolidated
area below 25%, without prior permission
of the Director of Consolidation. It is
urged that no such permission was taken in
this case. It is also argued that if that
permission be not required, the policy of
the law is clear that reductions more than
25% are to be avoided.

12. It is also argued that the area of
Chak holder No. 714 has been increased
from 6.96 acres to 9.24 acres which,
according to the learned counsel for the
petitioner, is again a very inequitable
carvation done by the Deputy Director of
Consolidation.

13. In reply, Sri Santosh Kumar
Singh has submitted that there is no
prejudice
caused
to
the
petitioner,
inasmuch as he has been given a Chak that
is not far-flung from his original holding.
It is located almost on the door-steps of his
original holding. In this connection, Sri
Santosh Kumar Singh has invited the
attention of the Court to a decision of this
Court in Asbaran vs. DDC and another,
1986 RD 430. In Asbaran (supra) it has
been held by this Court thus:

".....The requirement of allotting
original plot of the holding to the tenure
holder in his chak has been mandated only
in Section 19(1)(f), according to which, if
there exists private source of irrigation or
other improvement on the plot in question,
then it has got to be allotted in the chak of
the tenure holder. The allotment of chak in
violation of the provisions contained in
Section 19(1)(f) would certainly make
allotment illegal being violative of specific
provisions. But in my opinion, an
allotment of a ' Urban ' chak cannot be
taken to be illegal and without jurisdiction
if such a chak has been allotted at a place
quite near the original land held by the
tenure holder in its vicinity and not
excessively exceeding the valuation of his
original plots in that sector.

Thus, in view of the above, I
find that no interference is called for with
the impugned order by this Court in
exarches of powers Under Article 226 of
the Constitution merely on the ground that
the tenure holder has been allotted a ' Uraa
' chak although he has been allotted a chak
of compact area at the place where he had
held original land of his holding. A ' Urban
' chak can be said to be irregular in those
cases where the tenure holder is not
allotted chak at a place in the vicinity of
original land held by him in the Sector
Area, but the allotment of a ' Urban ' chak
to a tenure holder at a place quite near to
his original plot of the holding cannot be
said to be invalid merely on the ground
that being a ' Urban ' chak it could not be
legally allotted. I find that there exists no
legal bar to the allotment of a ' Urban '
chak or prohibiting allotment of such a
chak."

14. It is on the strength of the
aforesaid decision that Sri Santosh Kumar
Singh, learned counsel for the respondent
nos. 7 to 9 has stressed that what has been
allotted to the petitioner cannot be said to
have prejudiced him. It can hardly be
called a Udan Chak, in the sense it is
2 All. Bangali Vs. Asst. Director of Consolidation Ghazipur & Ors.
157
understood under the Consolidation Law.
It is further argued that so far as the
prohibition against a decrease in area by
more than 25 % under Section 19(1)(b) of
the Act is concerned, the said prohibition
is applicable to subordinate consolidation
Authorities alone. It is applicable to the
Consolidation Officer and the Settlement
Officer of Consolidation. He submits that
this prohibition carried in under Section
19(1)(b) is not at all applicable in a case
where
the
Deputy
Director
of
Consolidation decides to exceed this limit
of 25% of reduction. In support of his
contention,
learned
counsel
for
the
respondents has placed reliance on a
decision of this Court in Shri Nath vs.
D.D.C., Sultanpur reported in 1986 RD
209. In Shri Nath (supra) on the point
being canvassed, it has been held:

"....The
permission
of
the
Director of Consolidation, as envisaged
under the aforesaid proviso to Section
19(1)(b) would be necessary if the
subordinate
consolidation
authorities
would make allotment of a chak having
difference of more than 25 percent without
obtaining prior permission. But where the
Director of Consolidation or the Deputy
Director of Consolidation, who exercises
delegated powers of the Director of
Consolidation under the Act, has made
allotment of such a chak to a tenure holder
having a difference of more than 25 per
cent in area, it would in my opinion, not be
invalid because the permission for such an
allotment would be inherently manifest
therein. If the Authority which is required
to give permission to an allotment of chak
having a difference in area by more than
25 per cent itself makes the allotment of
such a chak in the process of making
appropriate adjustment in chalks of parties
while deciding a revision it cannot be
taken to be invalid and without jurisdiction
and no interference would be called for by
this Court in exercise of writ jurisdiction. "

15. It is also argued that what has
weighed with the Deputy Director of
Consolidation in disturbing what has been
consistently done by the Authorities below is
that the first Chak given to the contesting
respondents, taking away plots from the
petitioner's first Chak, including his original
holding was to meet an objection from the
contesting respondents that he had been given
a Chak that was far away from the village
with no source of irrigation. It was also urged
that the valuation of land that was basis of the
carvation of Chaks done by the Authorities
below, was on the lower side, disadvantaging
the contesting respondents. It is argued that it
was bearing in mind all these considerations
that the Deputy Director of Consolidation
adjusted equities between parties. It is, in the
last, submitted that the Deputy Director of
Consolidation is the last Court of fact as well
as law under the statute. He is invested with
exceptional
powers,
particularly,
after
addition of the 3rd Explanation to Section 48
of the Act with retrospective effect from the
year 1980. The impugned order passed by
him brings about a determination in exercise
of all those powers that have been exercised
on valid considerations and strikes equity
between parties. In the submission of the
learned counsel for the respondents, the
impugned order passed by the Deputy
Director of Consolidation is for all these
reasons not liable to be disturbed.

16. The Court has given a thoughtful
consideration to the contentions advanced
on both sides.

17. So far as the first submission of
the learned counsel for the petitioner goes
that the impugned order is bad as it does
158 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
not assign any reasons, it is required to be
tested with reference to the contents of the
order impugned. A reading of the
impugned
order
shows,
so
far
as
consideration of the petitioner's rights are
concerned, find mention in paragraph 4.

18. A perusal of paragraph 4 of the
impugned order shows in great detail how
the Deputy Director of Consolidation has
gone about adjusting Chaks of parties and
ordering their recarvation, but it does not
show even a word for a reason, why those
changes or adjustments are being made. A
reading of the impugned order passed by
the Deputy Director of Consolidation
leaves an impression that the Chaks have
been modified or redone only because the
Deputy Director of Consolidation has
thought it fit to do so. It does not show
why he has done it.

19. It is trite to say for a legal
principle that an order passed by any
judicial or quasi-judicial Authority, or for
that
matter
even
Administrative
Authorities, where rights of parties are
decided ought to disclose reasons for the
decisions reached. As is often said, reasons
are the soul and heart of a decision and
convey to the persons affected, as also a
superior Authority or a Superior Court, the
considerations that have weighed with the
decision
maker
in
arriving
at
his
conclusions.
Bereft
of
reasons,
the
decision
is
inherently
arbitrary.
On
howsoever good and valid consideration a
decision may have been rendered, the
absence of reasons would make it foul of
Article 14 of the Constitution. In this
connection, reference may be made to a
decision of this Court rendered in Sheo
Pal vs. Basu Deo & others, 2017 (135)
RD 335. The said case also involved a writ
petition against an order passed by a
Deputy Director of Consolidation under
Section 48 of the Act. The Deputy
Director of Consolidation had reversed the
orders of the Authorities below. In the
context of those facts, it was held:

"1.
.....The
only
argument
advances is that without giving any reason
by a totally non-speaking order revision
has been allowed by DDC.

3. A bare perusal thereof would
leave no manner of doubt that it is totally a
non-speaking and unreasoned order. The
issues raised by petitioner has not been
discussed at all and straightway conclusion
have been recorded by DDC.

4.
It
is
well
known
that
"conclusions" and "reasons" are two
different things and reasons must show
mental exercise of authorities in arriving at
a particular conclusion. In Union of India
v.
Mohan
Lal
Capoor
MANU/SC/0405/1973 : (1973) 2 SCC
836, as under:

"Reasons are the links between
the materials on which certain conclusions
are based and the actual conclusions. They
disclose how the mind is applied to the
subject matter for a decision whether it is
purely administrative or quasi-judicial.
They should reveal a rational nexus
between the facts considered and the
conclusions reached."

10. Since the impugned order
passed by DDC is wholly unreasoned and
non-speaking
the
same
cannot
be
sustained. ..."

20. Again, in Rajvinder Singh vs.
Deputy Director of Consolidation, 2014
(123) RD 76, this Court emphasized the
necessity for the Deputy Director of
Consolidation to record reasons while
reversing a finding or writing a judgment
of reversal. To like effect is a decision of
2 All. Bangali Vs. Asst. Director of Consolidation Ghazipur & Ors.
159
this Court sitting at Lucknow in Arjun vs.
Deputy
Director
of
Consolidation
Faizabad and another, 2015 (129) RD
205, where it has been held thus:

"14. Further, From the perusal of
the impugned order passed by D.D.C.,
Faizabad, the position which emerges out
is that he has not given any valid reasons
that under what circumstances, the finding
given by the Court below/Settlement
Officer Consolidation has been reversed
only the reason which has been given
while passing the impugned order is that
the same has been done only on the
statement given by the villagers while the
said statement is neither on record nor
supplied to the petitioner, so the case of
the revisionist/Mewa Lal deserves to be
allowed and on the basis of which the
impugned order has been passed.

15. Thus, from the record, it is
established that no valid reasons has been
given by the Deputy Director of Consolidation,
Faizabad while passing the impugned order,
rather it is based on no evidence and has not
scrutiny the whole case again to determine the
correctness, legality or propriety of the orders
passed by the authorities subordinate to him.
Hence, the impugned order is liable to be set
aside. "

21. This aspect of the matter as to
how the Deputy Director of Consolidation,
while exercising his powers of Revision,
should exercise those powers fell for
consideration of this Court in Gulab
Chandra vs. DDC, 2019 (143) RD 783,
where dealing with the manner in which
the Revisional Court ought to write its
judgment, in addition to the obligation of
assigning reasons, it was held:

22.
This
Court
is
rather
disconcerted to find that a reading of the
judgment of the Consolidation Officer, the
Assistant
Settlement
Officer,
and
particularly, the impugned order passed by
the Deputy Director of Consolidation in
Revision,
read
like
three
original
judgments, all written in exercise of a
concurrent jurisdiction. The judgment of a
Revisional Court cannot proceed to
address the issues laid before it by parties,
deal with them and decide, for that is to be
done by the Court or Authority of first
instance. The judgment of a Re-visional
Court has to open, go through and end like
a judgment of reappraisal of what the two
Courts or Authorities below have done.
The approach of reappraisal has to be
supervisory, and not open appellate. May
be, in the case of a revision under section
48 of the Act, the standard of reappraisal is
wider than that traditionally associated
with exercise of Revisional jurisdiction.
But, all the same, a Revisional Court
cannot decide and write its judgment as if
it were a Court of first instance, without
referring to and affirming or reversing the
findings of the two Authorities below, in
the context of the present Act. In the
present case, the impugned judgment has
precisely done that. It reads like an
original judgment written in the third
instance. It does not give any reason to
disagree with what the Appellate Court has
said, though it may have given its own
reasons. In the context of dealing with
criminal appeals and revisions, concerned
about the trappings of an Appellate or
Revisional Court's judgment or order, and
how it should read and proceed, their
Lordships of the Supreme Court In Re: To
issue
certain
guidelines
regarding
inadequacies and deficiencies in criminal
trials (Suo Motu Writ (Crl.) No. 1 of 2017
vide order dated 30.3.2017, issued the
following guidelines regarding the manner
in which Appellate and Revisional Courts
160 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
in criminal matters ought to write
judgments, and what are the essentials to
be adhered to while writing an Appellate
or
Revisional
judgment.
The
said
guidelines hold equally good in case of
exercise of any Appellate or Revisional
Authority by a Court or other Authority in
any other jurisdiction. Guideline No. 7 in
Suo Motu Writ (Crl.) No. 1 of 2017
(supra) reads thus:

"7. Repetition of pleadings,
evidence, and arguments in the judgments
and orders of the Trial Court, Appellate
and
Revisional
Courts
be
avoided.
Repetition
of
facts,
evidence,
and
contentions before lower Courts make the
judgments cumbersome, and takes away
the
precious
time
of
the
Court
unnecessarily. The Appellate/Revisional
Court judgment/order is the continuation
of the lower Court judgment and must
ideally start with " in this appeal/revision,
the impugned judgment is assailed on the
following grounds" or "the points that
arise
for
consideration
in
this
appeal/revision are". This does not of
course, take away the option/jurisdiction
of the Appellate/Revisional Courts to renarrate facts and contentions if they be
inadequately or insufficiently narrated in
the judgment. Mechanical re narration to
be avoided at any rate."

23. Particularly, relating to the
jurisdiction of the Deputy Director of
Consolidation under section 48 of the Act,
the aforesaid issue though in the context of
a title matter was considered by this Court
in Haridas and others v. Deputy Director
of Consolidation and another 2005 (98)
RD
593,
where
dealing
with
the
obligations of a Revisional Court while
writing its opinion, it was held thus:

"8. It is well settled that, while
setting aside the judgment of inferior
Court or Tribunal a Revisional Court or
higher Tribunal has to deal with the
findings given by the inferior Court or
Tribunal and is required to consider the
entire evidence on record. Thus while
recording the contrary findings the Deputy
Director of Consolidation was under
obligation to consider entire evidence on
record and also to record reasons of
differing
with
the
findings
of
Consolidation Officer and Settlement
Officer Consolidation......"

24. In the conspectus of the
above facts and the law, this Court is of
firm opinion that the impugned judgment
passed by the Revisional Court suffers
from a manifest error of law in ignoring
from consideration material evidence, that
is part of its own record, in particular, CH
Form-2-A and CH Form-41, and also in
exercising its jurisdiction, where it has
proceeded to decide a revision so much
like a Court of original jurisdiction that it
has lost its character of a Revisional order.
On both these counts, the impugned order
is found to be flawed and vitiated and,
thus, liable to be quashed with a remit of
the matter to the Deputy Director of
Consolidation to hear parties afresh,
consider relevant evidence on record with
opportunity to parties to place such
evidence on record as may be relevant and
to decide the revision afresh, all to be done
within a period of six months from the
date of receipt of a certified copy of this
order.

22. It has been recorded above that
the revisional order does nothing more
than to order about changes in the Chaks
of parties with no reference at all to the
determinations
made
by
the
two
Authorities below. There is no indication
of reasons that weighed with the Deputy
Director of Consolidation to reach the
conclusions that he has done. More
2 All. Bangali Vs. Asst. Director of Consolidation Ghazipur & Ors.
161
importantly, he has not made any
reference to the orders of the two
Authorities below, much less reverse their
findings to record his own which renders
the impugned order bad; it makes it bad at
least about the decision making process.

23. The other contention of the learned
counsel for the petitioner that he has been
given a Chak, so far as his first Chak is
concerned that does not include any part of his
original holding and is a Udan Chak, carries
some substance. While it is true that the Chak
is not truly speaking a Udan Chak in the sense
of the term that it sends away the petitioner to a
far flung location from his original holdings, it
certainly has the effect of completely depriving
the petitioner of the major part of his original
holding in the first Chak, comprised of seven
plots. This would not be much to his prejudice
as urged by the learned counsel for the
respondent, had the petitioner been given a
compact Chak, well rectangulated. But it
appears from a perusal of the map that has
been placed before the Court that the
petitioner's Chak has been rendered 'L' shaped.
It has become asymmetrical. A perusal of the
order passed by the Deputy Director of
Consolidation does not show that he has
bestowed any consideration to this aspect of
the matter.

24. The submission of the learned
counsel for the respondent that the Deputy
Director
of
Consolidation
must
be
imputed, knowledge of all these facts and
further an assumed consideration of all
these factors while recording his decision,
cannot be accepted. This is so because it
does not reflect in the order impugned that
he has considered any of these facts.

25. The next submission of the
petitioner that his area has been reduced
by 35% which is contrary to what the law
provides under Section 19(1)(b) may have
been successfully repelled by the learned
Counsel
for
the
respondent
for
a
proposition of law by placing reliance
upon the decision in Asbaran (supra),
which holds that the inhibition does not
apply
to
the
Deputy
Director
of
Consolidation, but the fact remains that the
law does frown upon reduction in area
beyond 25%. This is but obvious and for
good reason. It is for the reason that the
object of the Act is to provide tenure
holders with compact rectangulated and
consolidated holdings, where they can
carry on their agricultural activities with
greater convenience. This is the entire
scheme of the Act. A drastic reduction in
area would militate against the aforesaid
object. A prohibition on reduction in area
beyond 1/4th appears to embody a
legislative policy to prevent an expropriety carvation of Chaks that would
deprive a tenure holder of his valuable
property in the garb of consolidation.

26. This Court does not intend to say
that in appropriate circumstances, the
subordinate
Authorities
with
the
permission
of
the
Director
of
Consolidation or the Deputy Director of
Consolidation cannot reduce the area
beyond 25% or the Deputy Director cannot
in fit cases exercise that power. However,
before that power to reduce the area
beyond 25% is exercised, even by the
Deputy Director, there must be valid
reasons assigned to take this drastic step.
In this case, no such reasons have been
assigned. It is the last limb of the
submissions of Sri Arun Kumar, learned
counsel for the petitioner that the area of
Chak holder No. 714 has been increased
from 6.96 acres to 9.24 acres whereas his
area has been reduced from 10.88 acres to
7.10 acres. It is a very inequitable
162 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
adjustment of Chaks, done by the Deputy
Director of Consolidation. This submission is
not required to be gone into by this Court, in
view of what has already been said above. The
submission of Sri Santosh Kumar Singh on the
other hand that no prejudice to the petitioner
has been caused, inasmuch as, he has been
provided a Chak that is not far flung from his
original holding, does not appeal to this Court
for reasons of the indicated prejudice that has
been caused to the petitioner.

27. In the result, this writ petition
succeeds and his allowed. The impugned
order dated 09.04.1987 passed by the
Assistant
Director
of
Consolidation,
Ghazipur
Camp
Office
Bareilly
in
Revision No. 362 is hereby quashed.

28. The Revision shall stand restored
to the file of the concerned Assistant
Director/Deputy
Director
of
Consolidation, who will determine it
afresh after hearing both parties in
accordance with law. Both parties will
appear before the District Deputy Director
of
Consolidation/Collector,
Ballia
on
09.12.2019.

29. The District Deputy Director of
Consolidation will assign the matter to the
competent
Deputy
Director
of
Consolidation (unless he chooses to take
up the Revision himself) who will proceed
to decide this Revision as directed
hereinabove, within a period of six months
of the parties first appearing before him.

30. There shall be no order as to costs.
----------
(2020)02ILR A162

ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 05.02.2020

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE RAJNISH KUMAR, J.

Consolidation No. 8422 of 1987

Keshav Dayal & Ors. ...Petitioner
Versus
Addl. Collector ...Respondent

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Nirmal Tiwari, Nirmal Tewari

Counsel for the Respondent:
C.S.C., Birendra Narain Shukla

A. U.P C&H Act-challenging-order allowing
ojection of R.4-directing names of R-4 to 7-to
be recorded as co-tenure holders-Petitioner's
father-khudkasht of-land in dispute-cannot be
divided-amongst co-sharers of other propertiesmerely for this reason-co-sharers right can't be
waived-unless-proved-land
in
dispute-self
acquired-and not ancestral-petitioners failed to
prove the same-Dismissed.

B. Held, in the present case it has been proved
from the pleadings and evidence that the land in
dispute was acquired by Durga Prasad and the
petitioners have neither set up nor established
the plea of 'ouster'. Therefore all the sons of
Durga Prasad have equal share and the
Consolidation Officer has rightly directed to
record the names of opposite party nos.4 to 7 as
co-tenure holders and determined their shares
accordingly.The appeal filed by the petitioners
was duly considered and rejected by the
Settlement Officer Consolidation. Similarly the
Deputy Director of Consolidation in the revision
found that the name of Vidyadhar was recorded
on behalf of all and rejected the revision. This
Court does not find any illegality or error in the
findings recorded by the learned Consolidation
Officer, Settlement Officer Consolidation and the
Deputy Director of Consolidation which are
based
on
cogent
evidence
and
correct
appreciation of evidence and law. Therefore the
present writ petition is misconceived and lacks
merit.The writ-petition is, accordingly, dismissed.

Writ
Petition
dismissed.
(E-8)