DINA NATH TIWARI Vs. DEPUTY DIRECTOR CONSOLIDATION GORAKHPUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, has been filed by the petitioner for quashing the order dated 3.3.1997 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Gorakhpur, which has been filed as Annexure-5 to the writ petition.

(2.) The brief facts as stated in the petition are that during the course of consolidation proceeding, petitioner was proposed chak by the Assistant Consolidation Officer at his original holding plot No. 25 towards east side of the road and his co-sharers respondents Nos. 6 and 7 were proposed towards west side of the road. It is stated by the petitioner that the road is passing through the middle of his chak. His other chak-holders No. 55 was also proposed on their original holding plot No. 26 on road side without making any reduction in area of the land on the road side. It is stated that the father of the respondent Nos. 2 to 4 filed objection under Section 20 of the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 which was allowed without giving any notice to the petitioner. The petitioner preferred an appeal under Section 21 of the aforesaid Act before the Settlement Officer Consolidation, which was allowed on 27.6.1997. Thereafter the respondent Nos. 2 to 4 preferred revision, which was allowed on 3.3.1997. Learned counsel for the petitioner has urged that when the Deputy Director of Consolidation heard the argument on 3.3.1997, the petitioner has shown a Government Order No. C-37/G-452/81, dated 26.5.1981 and it was pleaded that the land of plot No. 25 is the land of the roadside and should not be given to the respondent Nos. 2 to 4 on the basis of the Government notification aforesaid. It is further stated that the respondent Nos. 2 to 4, who were chak holder No. 90 were allotted chak by the Assistant Consolidation Officer as well as the Settlement Officer Consolidation on their original holding plot No. 31. They had not a single inch of the land on the roadside. But the Deputy Director of Consolidation Illegally, arbitrarily allowed a chak to the respondent Nos. 2 to 4 on the roadside of plot No. 25 which exclusively is the land of the petitioner.

(3.) Parties have exchanged counter and rejoinder-affidavits.