Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 108 (UTT)

MOHD. YUSUF v. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF CONSOLIDATION

2013-03-07

V.K.Bist

body2013
JUDGMENT Hon’ble V.K. Bist, J. Instant petition has been filed challenging the order dated 02.06.2000 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Bijnour (hereinafter referred to as the DDC) in Revision No. 80 ‘Ratan Singh vs. Mohd. Yusuf and ors.’ by which the revision filed by the respondent no.4 was allowed. 2. It is asserted in the petition that the Consolidation Officer vide order dated 22.09.1995 allotted Chak in favour of the petitioner at the original holdings. One Chak was allotted at his original holding on Gata No. 201/1 and other Chak at Gata No. 245. It has been further asserted that only a small area of his original holding of Gata No. 200/1 was given in his Chak. The petitioner filed an appeal, bearing no. 857 ‘Mohd. Yusuf vs. Janeshwar and ors.’ before the Settlement Officer Consolidation, Roorkee, which stood allowed. Thereafter, the respondent no.4 preferred a revision before the DDC who allowed the revision of respondent no.4 vide order dated 02.06.2000, which the order impugned in the instant petition. 3. The respondent no.4 filed counter affidavit with the averment that the respondent has been given the Chak on his original holding, where he has his private electricity tube well, his other brothers were also given the Chaks. It is asserted that by making adjustment, the petitioner has been placed at his original holding. It is further asserted that the respondent has not taken any land/valuation of the petitioner and on account of change, the petitioner cannot be said to be effected in any manner, therefore the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the judgment passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation and other material available on record. 5. From a bare perusal of the order passed by the DDC, it emerges out that the DDC has not discussed anywhere the judgment of the Settlement Officer, inasmuch as he has not discussed the points on which basis the revision was allowed, merely amended table was mentioned in the order, which was annexed with case file. Further, it is not apparent that in what manner the DDC interfered with the findings of the Settlement Officer. On this sole account, the writ petition deserves to be allowed. Further, it is not apparent that in what manner the DDC interfered with the findings of the Settlement Officer. On this sole account, the writ petition deserves to be allowed. Further, the matter requires proper adjudication and is a fit case to be remanded to the DDC concerned for reconsideration as observed above. 6. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. Impugned order dated 02.06.2000 passed by the DDC in Revision No. 80 ‘Ratan Singh vs. Mohd. Yusuf and others’ is hereby set-aside. The matter is remanded back to the DDC concerned for deciding the Revision No. 80. The DDC is directed to provide adequate opportunity to the parties concerned. While hearing the matter, the DDC will deal with all the submissions raised by the parties, including the original holding, tube well and any other items/ properties which the parties may mention before the DDC. 7. No order as to costs.