JUDGMENT Ram Surat Ram (Maurya), J. 1. Supplementary affidavit filed today is taken on record. The counsel for the petitioners is permitted to implead the persons as respondents-3 and 4. 2. Heard Sri K.N. Shukla, for the petitioners and Sri Shiv Ram Singh along with Sri Rajesh Maurya, for respondent-2. 3. The writ petition has been filed against the order of Deputy Director of Consolidation dated 16.01.2015, passed in chak allotment proceeding under U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). 4. The petitioners and Smt. Badami (now represented by respondent-2) were co-sharers, having 1/2 share each, in plots 636 (area 0.181 hectare), 702/1266-M (area 0.747 hectare), 1102 (area 0.559 hectare) and 1147 (area 1.761 hectare) of village Salahabad, tahsil and district Mau, which were recorded jointly in their names in basic consolidation year. Smt. Badami executed a sale deed dated 13.02.1989 of plot 702/1266-M (area 0.336 hectare) in favour of Jagat Narain Singh. Assistant Consolidation Officer by order dated 28.12.2010, held share of Smt. Bindu Devi (respondent-2) as 1/2 in the aforesaid plots except its chak out area. During partal, plots 1147/2 (area 0.076 hectare) was found as pokhari, 1147/3 (area 0.153 hectare) was found as grove, 1147/5 (area 0.101 hectare) and 702/1266/2 (area 0.030 hectare) were found as abadi and these plots were left as chak out. Assistant Consolidation Officer proposed two chaks to the petitioners (chak-503), i.e. first chak was proposed on 1147/1 and 1147/4 (total area 1.345 hectare) and second chak on plots 688/1 and 702/1266/1 (total area 0.077 hectare). Smt. Bindu Devi (respondent-2) (chak-506) was proposed three chaks i.e. first chak was proposed on 1102 (total area 0.460 hectare), second chak on plots 635/1, 636, 637, 638 and 647 (total area 0.484 hectare) and third chak on plots 702/1266/1 (area 0.609 hectare). 5. Smt. Bindu Devi filed a time barred objection under Section 20 of the Act, claiming for allotment of chak on plot 1147, according to her share in it, on the ground that this plot situated on PWD road and had commercial value. Consolidation Officer, by order dated 22.11.2014, held that this plot did not lie on the main PWD road Mau to Chirayakot but by the side of village road, in which the petitioners had installed rice-mill. Chak dispute of the village has already been decided from the stage of Deputy Director of Consolidation. Consolidation Officer, by order dated 22.11.2014, held that this plot did not lie on the main PWD road Mau to Chirayakot but by the side of village road, in which the petitioners had installed rice-mill. Chak dispute of the village has already been decided from the stage of Deputy Director of Consolidation. On these findings, he dismissed the objection. Smt. Bindu Devi filed a revision from the aforesaid order. Deputy Director of Consolidation, by order dated 16.01.2015, found that plot 1147 situated on main pitch road and has commercial value. Smt. Bindu Devi was co-sharer of 1/2 share in it. On these findings, he allowed the revision and allotted a chak to Smt. Bindu Devi on plot 1147/1 (area 0.588 hectare), taking it from the chak of the petitioner. In lieu of it, the petitioners were allotted chak on plot 702/1266 (area 0.609 hectare) and 1147/4 (area 0.066 hectare) which was left as bachat land. Hence this writ petition has been filed. 6. The counsel for the petitioner submitted that plot 1147 did not situate on the main PWD road Mau to Chirayakot but by the side of village road, in which the petitioners had planted rice-mill and has also constructed their house and had private source of irrigation as under private partition between the parties, entire plot 1147 was given in exclusive possession of the petitioners. Plot 702/1266 also situates on pitch road and hardly at a distance of 500 meter from plot 1147. Assistant Consolidation Officer proposed the chak to the petitioners on plot 1147, in view of his rice-mill, house, grove and private source of irrigation on it. Chak of respondent-2 on plot 702/1266 was also on original holding. As some of its area has been sold by mother of respondent-2 as such transferees were allotted chak on roadside land of this plot and respondent-2 was allotted chak on backside, which has now been allotted to the petitioners. Respondent-2 obtained double advantage, in as much as, her mother has sold roadside land of plot 702/1266 and now she is allotted chak on roadside land of plot 1147 also. Due to sale deed executed by mother of respondent-2, the petitioners have been put in disadvantageous position as they have been deprived frontage on roadside from plot 702/1266. Revision has been allowed in perfunctorily manner, without examining entire facts of the case and ignoring findings of Consolidation Officer. Due to sale deed executed by mother of respondent-2, the petitioners have been put in disadvantageous position as they have been deprived frontage on roadside from plot 702/1266. Revision has been allowed in perfunctorily manner, without examining entire facts of the case and ignoring findings of Consolidation Officer. Respondent-1 did not prepare spot inspection memo nor provided post inspection hearing. Findings of respondent-1 that plot 1147 situated on main pitch road is incorrect as is proved from confirmed chak map. Order of respondent-1 is illegal and liable to be set aside. 7. I have considered the arguments of the counsel for the parties and examined the record. A perusal of confirmed chak map shows that plot 1147 did not situate on the main PWD road Mau to Chirayakot but at a short distance from this road and by the side of village road while plot 702/1266 situates at a quite long distance, in village. Even if plot 702/1266 also situates on pitch road but as plot 1147 situates as short distance from Mau to Jail road as such its commercial value of is more than plot 702/1266. 8. So far as the arguments that private partition had taken place between the parties is concerned, there is no evidence to prove private partition between the parties. On the other hand Annexure-1 to the writ petition, contains endorsement of the order of Assistant Consolidation Officer dated 28.12.2010, by which share of the parties had been decided, which disprove private partition prior to it. 9. During partal and revision of map, five sub-division of plot 1147 was made. A perusal of CH Form-2A shows that plot 1147/1 (area 0.765 hectare) was agricultural land of respondent-2, 1147/2 (area 0.075 hectare) was pokhari of the petitioners, 1147/3 (area 0.153 hectare) was grove of the petitioners, 1147/4 (area 0.666 hectare) was agricultural land of the petitioners and 1147/5 (area 0.101 hectare) was abadi of the petitioners. Thus out of total area of 1.761 hectare of plot 1147, an area of 0.765 hectare was in possession of respondent-2. By the order of Deputy Director of Consolidation, she has been allotted an area of 0.588 hectare of plot 1147. The petitioners are still having 1.173 hectare of plot 1147. It is not liable to be accepted that respondent-2 has been given double benefits. By the order of Deputy Director of Consolidation, she has been allotted an area of 0.588 hectare of plot 1147. The petitioners are still having 1.173 hectare of plot 1147. It is not liable to be accepted that respondent-2 has been given double benefits. Respondent-2 was co-sharer of 1/2 share in plot 1147, which situates near PWD road Mau to Chirayakot and had more commercial value than plot 702/1266 as such respondent-2 was rightly allotted chak over it, in view of settled legal position in this respect in various cases by this Court. 10. Arguments regarding post inspection hearing is concerned, this Court in Ramdeo Vs. D.D.C. and others, 1980 AWC 593=1980 RD 324. held that if Deputy Director of Consolidation after hearing the arguments, decided for spot inspection, then previous arguments stand nullified and Deputy Director of Consolidation should hear fresh arguments after spot inspection. The procedure for disposal of chak objection has been provided under Section 21 of the Act. Section 21 (3) of the Act, provides that the Consolidation Officer shall, before deciding the objections and the 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, the Consolidation Officer shall make a local inspection of the plot concerned, prepare and 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. This Court has held that there is no statutory compulsion for Deputy Director of Consolidation for spot inspection, while deciding the revision. 11. 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 1147, which was claimed by respondent-2 that it situated by the side of State High Way and has commercial value. In this case, the dispute between the parties was for allotment of chak on plot 1147, which was claimed by respondent-2 that it situated by the side of State High Way and has commercial value. According to the petitioners, plot 702/1266 was also roadside land and has commercial value. For verifying the aforesaid claims, spot inspection was necessitated and done. These facts can also be verified from confirmed chak map. 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 judgment by Deputy Director of Consolidation, then he was not require to hear the arguments afresh after spot inspection and ratio of Ramdeo Vs. D.D.C. and others, 1980 AWC 593=1980 RD 324. has been distinguished. 12. Similar provisions for spot inspection in other statute and the view of Apex Court in this respect may also be examined 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. 13. 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." 14. Section 310 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 contains similar provision for spot inspection, which is quoted below: - 310. We must therefore, reject the contention of the learned Advocate for the appellants that the finding in respect of the idol is vitiated." 14. 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. 15. Supreme Court in State of H.P. v. Mast Ram, AIR 2004 SC 5056 =2004 (23) AIC 326 (SC) 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." 16. 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. 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 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." 17. Thus view expressed in Ramdeo's case (supra) that if after arguments, spot inspection was made then earlier arguments stands nullified is contrary to principle laid down by Supreme Court, in aforementioned cases as the only purpose of spot inspection is to test the correctness of the arguments and to appreciate the evidence on record more properly. Thus view expressed in Ramdeo's case (supra) that if after arguments, spot inspection was made then earlier arguments stands nullified is contrary to principle laid down by Supreme Court, in aforementioned cases as 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 local inspection. In view of the contrary judgments of Supreme Court, the judgment in Ramdeo's case (supra) has no binding precedent. 18. In view of the aforesaid discussions, writ petition has no merit and is dismissed.