SAUDAN SINGH Vs. D D C

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri Satendra Pratap Singh, learned Counsel for the Petitioner, Sri Ayub Khan for Respondent No. 2 and Smt. Neelam Pandey for Respondent No. 3. Respondent Nos. 4 to 6 are real brother of Respondent No. 3 and it is stated at the Bar that Respondent No. 7 remained unrepresented as he appears to have died and is No. longer alive.

(2.) Learned Counsel submits that he does not seek any relief against Respondent No. 7 or other Respondent Nos. 3 to 6 at this stage. In view of this, it is not necessary to issue notice to Respondent Nos. 4 to 7. Sri Ayub Khan for the Respondent No. 2 and Smt. Neelam Pandey for Respondent No. 3 state that they do not propose to file any counter-affidavit at this stage in view of the nature of the order that is proposed to be passed.

(3.) The challenge in this writ petition is to the order of the Deputy Director of Consolidation whereby he has reversed the order of Settlement Officer Consolidation in relation to the allotment of Chaks to the Petitioner. The ground taken is that the Petitioner has been allotted Plot Nos. 1600 and 1601 which are recorded as Pokhar (Pond) and Banjar (Barren) land respectively. Sri Singh has relied on CH Form 2-A to assert that the allotment seriously prejudices the rights of the Petitioner. Learned Counsel for Respondent No. 2 - Ayub Khan submits that the Petitioner at the level of Settlement Officer Consolidation had been allotted the original holding of the answering Respondent No. 2 being Plot Nos. 1616 and 1617 and, therefore, aggrieved by the same, the revision has been preferred. Sri Khan submits that the original holding of the answering Respondent also contains his Tubewell and it is for the said reason that the Deputy Director of Consolidation has reversed the order of Settlement Officer Consolidation.