BRIJ NATH MISHRA Vs. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF CONSOLIDATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned Counsel for the parties.

(2.) The present writ petition arises out of proceedings under Section 20 of U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The Petitioner's original chak was chak No. 354. Respondent No. 4 Ramji was chak holder of chak No. 478 and Respondent No. 6 Lalji was chak holder No. 559. The Respondent Nos. 4 and 6 are admittedly co-sharers and arazi Nos. 109 and 134 are their original holdings alongwith other plots. So far original holding of the Petitioner are plot Nos. 98, 99, 100, 140, 142 alongwith one plot No. 135/2. The Petitioner has demonstrated this by means of Annexure-1 which is C.H. Form 23. At the stage of Assistant Consolidation Officer, the Petitioner was allotted two chaks, plot Nos. 117 and 118 situated adjacent to his original plot No. 99 and were included in the chak of the Petitioner. Claim of the Petitioner is that plot No. 99 comprises of abadi and he has also a private source of irrigation on the said plot. While allotment of chak, two plot Nos. 117 and 118 were allotted to the Petitioner on a consideration that he had irrigation facility at the adjacent chak. Respondent No. 11 is also co-sharer of Respondent Nos. 4 and 6 as such plot No. 135/2 situated between plot Nos. 109 and 134 was allotted in favour of Respondent No. 11. The Petitioner had no grievance at any stage from the arrangement made at the time of allotment of chak. However, Respondent Nos. 4 and 6 being aggrieved by order of the Assistant Consolidation Officer, preferred an appeal before the Settlement Officer Consolidation. However, demand of the said Respondents was refused by the Settlement Officer, Consolidation vide order dated 17.8.1995. Several adjustments were made inter se amongst the Respondents who are admittedly co-sharers, as a consequence, plot No. 135/2 was given to Respondent No. 6 which was initially given to Respondent No. 11. Two separate revisions were preferred by Respondent Nos. 4 and 6. Memo of revisions are annexed as Annexures-11 and 12 to the counter-affidavit.

(3.) Counsel for the Petitioner has tried to demonstrate that after allotment of plot No. 135/2 to Respondent No. 6 by the Settlement Officer, Consolidation, revision was preferred but there was no objection or demand whatsoever in respect of plots allotted to the Petitioner, i.e., plot Nos. 117 and 118. It is also pointed out by Petitioner's counsel that he was not even arrayed as a party in the revision. The entire dispute raised before the revisional court was confined to the dispute between the Respondents who are co-sharers inter se pertaining to plot No. 134 which was pending adjudication before the Consolidation Officer under Section 9A (2) of the Act. The Deputy Director of Consolidation by means of impugned order allotted Petitioner's plot Nos. 117 and 118 in favour of Respondents and in lieu thereof plot No. 135/2 and some part of plot No. 134 was given to the Petitioner.