JUDGMENT Ram Surat Ram (Maurya),J. 1. Heard Sri S.K. Srivastav along with Sri Jagdish Prasad Mishra, for the petitioner and Sri Arjun Singhal, for respondent-2. 2. The writ petition has been filed for quashing the orders of Deputy Director of Consolidation, dated 20.09.2014 and 27.05.2015, passed in chak allotment proceeding under U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). 3. Plot 189-m (area 0.1071 hectare) of village Khindariya, pargana Purchhapar, district Muzaffarnagar along with other plots were original holdings of the petitioner. Assistant Consolidation Officer allotted a single chak to the petitioner (chak-215) on plots 188, 189, 192 and 194 of an area of 0.5324 hectare. Plot 189-m (area 0.3693 hectare) was also original holding of Likhey Ram (chak-418). He was also allotted a single chak on plots 189, 190, 191, 192, 193 and 194 of an area of 0.3438 hectare. The petitioner filed an objection (registered as Case No. 1) under Section 21 of the Act. The Consolidation Officer by order dated 22.03.2013, allowed the objection and modified the chak of the petitioner, in which chak of Likhey Ram has also been modified. 4. Likhey Ram filed an appeal (registered as Appeal No. 385) against aforesaid order, stating therein that the petitioner, in his objection demanded for allotment of chak on plot 263, of the valuation of his plot 175 (area 1-0-0 bigha), which was purchased by him but the Consolidation Officer has illegally allotted chak to him on plot 189 etc. Due to which his chak has become in the shape of long strip. Settlement Officer Consolidation, by order dated 14.08.2013 found that major part of original holdings of Likhey Ram was in northern side of plot 189 and he was rightly allotted chak in northern side, taking major portion of his original holdings. On these findings he dismissed appeal of Likhey Ram. Likhey Ram filed a revision (registered as Revision No. 198) against aforesaid order. The revision was heard by Deputy Director of Consolidation on 25.08.2014, who also made spot inspection on 03.09.2014 and by order dated 20.09.2014 allowed the revision and restored the chaks of the parties of the stage of Assistant Consolidation Officer. The petitioner filed an application for recall of the order dated 20.09.2014 on the ground that order has been passed without spot inspection and without hearing the arguments. The petitioner filed an application for recall of the order dated 20.09.2014 on the ground that order has been passed without spot inspection and without hearing the arguments. Additional Collector by order dated 27.05.2015 found that arguments of both the parties were heard on 25.08.2014 and 03.09.2014 was fixed for spot inspection and 20.09.2014 for delivery of order. Spot inspection was conducted in presence of the parties. Likhey Ram was allotted some portion of plots 191, 192, 193 and 194, due to which no prejudice has been caused to the petitioner. The order has been passed on merit after hearing the arguments of the parties and after spot inspection and it was not liable to be recalled. On these findings recall application was rejected. Hence this writ petition has been filed. 5. The counsel for the petitioner submitted that Deputy Director of Consolidation passed the order dated 20.09.2014, without application of mind. He has not assigned any reason for interfering, with the orders of sub-ordinate authorities nor pointed out any illegality in it, for exercising his revisional jurisdiction. The petitioner took the plea that he had planted popular tree on his original holdings, which is standing on the spot, but Deputy Director of Consolidation did not advert to the aforesid argument. Deputy Director of Consolidation did not prepare spot inspection memo nor heard arguments after spot inspection and allowed the revision without recording any findings or assigning any reason for interference. This Court in Ramdeo Vs. D.D.C. and others, 1980 RD 324 held that Deputy Director of Consolidation was required to hear arguments afresh, after spot inspection. Direction of the chak has been changed by sub-ordinate authority at their own level without there being any specification by Deputy Director of Consolidation in this respect. The order of Deputy Director of Consolidation was arbitrary and exparte but the recall application of the petitioner has been rejected. The orders of Deputy Director of Consolidation are illegal and liable to be set aside. 6. I have considered the arguments of the counsel for the parties and examined the records. The arguments raised by the counsel for the petitioner on the basis of case law in Ramdeo's (supra) has to be considered. The procedure for disposal of chak objection has been provided under Section 21 of the Act. 6. I have considered the arguments of the counsel for the parties and examined the records. The arguments raised by the counsel for the petitioner on the basis of case law in Ramdeo's (supra) has to be considered. The procedure for disposal of chak objection has been provided under Section 21 of the Act. Section 21 (3) of the Act, provides that Consolidation Officer shall, before deciding the objections and Settlement Officer Consolidation, may before deciding an appeal, make local inspection of the plots in dispute after notice to the parties concerned and the Consolidation Committee. Similar provision has been given under Section 9-B (2) of the Act, for spot inspection for disposal of objections against Statement of Principles. Rules 24-D and 26 (5) of U.P.C.H. Rules, 1954 provides that for deciding dispute relating to determination of exchange ratio of a plot or the valuation of a tree, well or other improvement existing on a plot, Consolidation Officer shall make a local inspection of the plot concerned, prepare an inspection memo and place it on the concern file. By virtue of Section 44-A of the Act, Deputy Director of Consolidation can also exercise these powers in his discretion. However there is no statutory compulsion for Deputy Director of Consolidation for spot inspection, while deciding revision. 7. The purpose of local inspection is to properly appreciate the arguments of the parties made on the basis evidence already recorded during the trial and not to collect fresh evidence. In this case, the dispute between the parties was for allotment of chak on plot 189. The petitioner wants for allotment of chak in east-west shape while respondent-2, alleged that his chak in east-west shape has become in long strip. For verifying the aforesaid issue, spot inspection was done. In this case arguments were heard by Deputy Director of Consolidation on 25.08.2014. On that very day, he fixed 03.09.2014 for spot inspection and 20.09.2014 for delivery of judgment. Although, the petitioner has denied spot inspection in his presence but on Annexure-6 to writ petition, his son Vinod Kumar has made signature, in which it has been mentioned that inspection was done in presence of the parties. Nothing new was noticed/considered by Deputy Director of Consolidation at the time of spot inspection, which requires fresh hearing. This Court in Amarjit Singh Vs. Nothing new was noticed/considered by Deputy Director of Consolidation at the time of spot inspection, which requires fresh hearing. This Court in Amarjit Singh Vs. Assistant Director of Consolidation and others, 1998 (89) RD 231 held that in case during spot inspection, no fresh material has been found/relied upon in the order by Deputy Director of Consolidation, then he was not required to hear the arguments afresh after spot inspection and ratio of Ramdeo's case has been distinguished. 8. Similar provisions for spot inspection in other statute and the view of Apex Court in this respect may also be examined in order to appreciate the ratio of Ramdeo's Case (supra). Order 18 Rule 18 of Civil Procedure Code, 1908 contains provisions for local inspection by the Court as follows: - Order 18 Rule 18.- Power of Court to inspect.-- The Court may at any stage of a suit inspect any property or thing concerning which any question may arise and where the Court inspects any property or thing it shall, as soon as may be practicable, make a memorandum of any relevant facts observed at such inspection and such memorandum shall form a part of the record of the suit. 9. Supreme Court in Ugamsingh and Mishrimal v. Kesrimal, AIR 1971 SC 2540 , held that "the judgment in our view is not based solely on the result of personal inspection made by the trial Judge, which inspection was for the purposes of understanding the evidence in the case and has been so used by the trial Judge. We must therefore, reject the contention of the learned Advocate for the appellants that the finding in respect of the idol is vitiated." 10. Section 310 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 contains similar provision for spot inspection, which is quoted below: - 310. Local inspection.--(1) Any Judge or Magistrate may, at any stage of any inquiry, trial or other proceeding, after due notice to the parties, visit and inspect any place in which an offence is alleged to have been committed, or any other place which it is in his opinion necessary to view for the purpose of properly appreciating the evidence given at such inquiry or trial, and shall without unnecessary delay record a memorandum of any relevant facts observed at such inspection. (2) Such memorandum shall form part of the record of the case and if the prosecutor, complainant or accused or any other party to the case, so desires, a copy of the memorandum shall be furnished to him free of cost. 11. Supreme Court in State of H.P. v. Mast Ram, AIR 2004 SC 5056 , has held that "apart, the local inspection envisaged under Section 310 CrPC is for the purpose of properly appreciating the evidence already recorded during the trial. Memorandum of spot inspection recorded by the trial Judge has to be appreciated in conjunction with the evidence already recorded. Any omission and/or commission in the memorandum recorded by the trial Judge by itself would not constitute material irregularity, which would vitiate the prosecution case." 12. Supreme Court in Shadilal Gupta v. State of Punjab, (1973) 1 SCC 680 , has held that "what is urged before us in this case is that as the report of the Treasury Officer, which we have already referred to earlier, was taken into consideration without showing it to the appellant he has been seriously prejudiced and the principles of natural justice have been violated insofar as he has not had an opportunity of making his representation in respect of that report. We find no substance in this contention. When Shri Banwari Lal wanted a local enquiry to be made he apparently wanted the representation made by the appellant to be checked up with the records and that is what has been done as is clear from a comparison of the allegations on the basis of which the charge-sheet was served on the petitioner, and the report of the Treasury Officer. We have carefully gone through it and it does not add one single instance more than what is already found in the allegations. It merely sets out the evidence in support of these allegations. We are, therefore, of the opinion that the appellant has not been in any way prejudiced by the Treasury Officer's report being taken into consideration before the order of punishment was passed against the petitioner. If before the Treasury Officer had sent his report he had associated the appellant in the enquiry he held it would not have been necessary to give him a copy of the report he sent. If before the Treasury Officer had sent his report he had associated the appellant in the enquiry he held it would not have been necessary to give him a copy of the report he sent. If the report had contained any material extraneous to the charges against the appellant, or any thing in addition to what is found in the original allegations against him then only he could be said to have been prejudiced. There is no question in this case of the Treasury Officer's report having prejudiced the punishing officer, Mr D.D. Sharma. The application of the principles of natural justice is not a question of observance of a formula or a mere technicality. In essence it is meant to assure that the party concerned has an opportunity of being heard, the principle of audi alteram partem. Whether in any particular case it has been violated will depend on the facts and circumstances of that case. It is not to be considered that unless all the procedure of the courts are observed it would mean failure to observe the principles of natural justice. We are of the opinion that no principles of natural justice have been violated in this case." 13. Thus view expressed in Ramdeo's case (supra) that if after arguments, spot inspection was made then earlier arguments stands nullified is contrary to principles laid down by Supreme Court, in aforementioned cases. The only purpose of spot inspection is to test the correctness of the arguments and to appreciate the evidence on record more properly. Violation of principles of natural justice cannot be inferred merely on the ground that Deputy Director of Consolidation has not heard arguments again after spot inspection. In view of the contrary judgments of Supreme Court, the judgment in Ramdeo's case (supra) is not a binding precedent. 14. The petitioner, deliberately, did not file copy of his objection before Consolidation Officer. Violation of principles of natural justice cannot be inferred merely on the ground that Deputy Director of Consolidation has not heard arguments again after spot inspection. In view of the contrary judgments of Supreme Court, the judgment in Ramdeo's case (supra) is not a binding precedent. 14. The petitioner, deliberately, did not file copy of his objection before Consolidation Officer. It has been specifically stated by respondent-2, in the memorandum of appeal and revision that in the objection, the petitioner demanded for allotment of chak on plot 263 of the valuation of plot 175, which was purchased by him but Consolidation Officer disturbed his chak contrary to the demand of the petitioner, due to which his chak has become in long strip, which was found to be correct after spot inspection as such revision was allowed and the parties were allotted chaks in rectangular shape. Although reasons in this respect has not been specifically recorded but the arguments were noticed and accepted. Thus it cannot be said that order of Deputy Director of Consolidation is arbitrary and revision has been allowed without assigning any reason or order is without application of mind. 15. So far as the arguments that direction of the chak has been changed by sub-ordinate authorities without any specification by Deputy Director of Consolidation, is concerned, amendment chart attached to the order shows that plots 189, 191, 192, 193 and 194 were taken from the chak of the petitioner and allotted in the chak of respondent-2. These plots situates in eastern side while plots 188 and 189, which were allotted to the petitioner, situates in the western side as such direction of the chaks of the parties are apparent and has not been carved by sub-ordinate authorities. Normal practice before the consolidation authorities in hearing the chak objection, appeal and revision is to have a village map and CH Form-23 before him and at the time of passing the order, they used to mark the amendment in village map and also prepare amendment chart. The arguments in this respect is based upon conjectures and surmises. 16. So far as the claim of the petitioner that he had planted hundred popular tree on his portion of plot 189, is concerned, the petitioner has not filed CH Form-2-A to verify the correctness of the arguments. The arguments in this respect is based upon conjectures and surmises. 16. So far as the claim of the petitioner that he had planted hundred popular tree on his portion of plot 189, is concerned, the petitioner has not filed CH Form-2-A to verify the correctness of the arguments. If he had planted popular trees after start of consolidation operation without permission of Settlement Officer Consolidation, then no notice of such improvement can be taken. In the application dated 23.09.2014, filed before Settlement Officer Consolidation, he stated that in northern, southern and eastern side of his chak, he had planted popular trees. A part of northern and southern of his chak is still in his chak. It is only eastern-southern portion of his chak has been allotted in the chak of respondent-2. In case some of his trees, in that portion is falling in the chak of respondent-2, then the petitioner may cut it within a period of one month and respondent-2 may not raise any objection in this respect. 17. In view of aforesaid discussions, it is found that Consolidation Officer, without there being any demand for allotment of chak on plot 189, has disturbed the chak of respondent-2, due to which chak of respondent-2 has become in long strip. By the order of Deputy Director of Consolidation, chaks of the petitioner and respondent-2 have become in rectangular shape. The chak of the petitioner is substantially on plot 189, which is his original holdings and no prejudice has been caused to him. The order dated 20.09.2014 was not an exparte order and recall application was not maintainable in view of Full Bench decision of this Court in Shivraji Vs. DDC abd others, 1997 RD 562 . 18. In view of the aforesaid discussions, the writ petition has no merit and is dismissed.