PRAMOD KUMAR Vs. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF CONSOLIDATION MEERUT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioners Sri S.K. Tyagi and Sri Ramendra Asthana for the respondent No. 2. In view of the nature of the proceedings, and the order that is proposed to be passed, it is not necessary to issue notices to the respondent Nos. 3 to 6 who are proforma respondents in the present proceedings. The main contest is with regard to the allocation of shares over plot No. 136/1, particularly, that portion which includes trees said to have been planted and shown in C.H. Form 2A in the share of Kiran Singh-respondent No. 4. The contesting respondents had filed an objection under Section 21(1) of the U.P. C.H. Act, 1953 which was rejected on 17.8.1990. The said order came to be assailed through a time barred appeal which was dismissed on 4th May, 1996 after condoning the delay. The Settlement Officer Consolidation held that the respondents had no claim surviving and if they are claiming any entitlement over the trees they ought to have filed objections under Section 9A(2) of the U.P. C.H. Act, 1953. It is not disputed at the bar that such objections have been filed by the respondents and they are still pending consideration.

(2.) Aggrieved by the order of the Settlement Officer Consolidation a revision was filed by the respondents and the same has been allowed by the impugned order dated 21st October, 2011 based on a report of the Assistant Consolidation Officer dated 8th August, 2007 which in turn is founded on an alleged spot inspection. The Deputy Director of Consolidation has reversed the order of the Settlement Officer Consolidation and the Consolidation Officer on the ground that the respondents have been deprived of their holding which included the portion of the trees planted thereon and therefore they are entitled for allotment to that extent of valuation over plot No. 136/1.

(3.) Sri Tyagi submits that the said conclusion is based on a report of the year 2007 ignoring the entry as endorsed in C.H. Form 2A and further that no orders have been passed in favour of the respondents in their claim set forth in the objection under Section 9A(2) of the U.P. C.H. Act, 1953 referred to hereinabove.