HARI DAS Vs. JOINT DIRECTOR OF CONSOLIDATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Sri M.S. Tyagi, learned counsel for the petitioner Sri Nand Prasad, learned standing counsel for the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 and Sri J.C. Pandey, learned counsel for the respondent No.4.

(2.) THE present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned judgment and orders dated 24 -01 -1991 and 7 -12 -1990 passed by the respondents No. 1 and 2 i.e Joint Director of consolidation, Meerut Camp At Roorkee and Assistant Settlement Officer, Consolidation, Haridwar (contained in annexure No.2 and 1 respectively) whereby the Assistant settlement Officer, Consolidation Haridwar allowed the appeal of respondent No.4 and the revision filed by the petitioner against the order dated 7 -12 -1990 has been dismissed by the Joint Director of Consolidation, Meerut (Camp At Roorkee).

(3.) BRIEFLY stated the facts giving rise to the present writ petition are that the dispute in the present writ petition arisen out of proceedings under Section 20 of U.P. Consolidation of Land Holdings Act (hereinafter to be referred as the 'Act). The petitioner is the Chak holder No. 573 whereas the respondent No.4 is Chak holder No.351. The provisional scheme was prepared by the Assistant Consolidation Officer under Section 19 of the act and plot No. 312 was proposed to be included in the Chak of the petitioner. Being aggrieved by the said scheme, the respondent No.4 filed an objection under Section 20 of the act inter alia on the grounds before Consolidation Officer that the Chak proposed to be allotted to the respondent No.4 on Khasra Plot No.238 etc is irrational as it is situated at a long distance from the village and is comprising of inferior quality of land and accordingly prayer was made for allotment of Chak to him by including Khasra Plot No. 312. The Consolidation Officer rejected the objection of Moti Lal, the respondent No. 4 vide order dated 9 -8 -1990. Aggrieved by the order of Consolidation Officer, the respondent No.4 preferred an appeal under section 21(2) of the Act along with delay condonation application before respondent No.2 The Assistant Settlement Consolidation Officer after hearing both the parties, condoned the delay in filing the appeal and the appeal was allowed by the Assistant Settlement Consolidation Officer, Haridwar (Camp at Roorkee) and half and half area of Plot No.312 was given to the petitioner as well as to the respondent No.4.