NARAYAN Vs. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF CONSOLIDATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Standing Counsel representing the respondent nos.1 and 2 and Sunil Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the respondent no.4-Gaon Sabha and perused the record.

(2.) Petitioners have filed the instant writ petition invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court with the following prayer :-

(3.) Present writ petition is arising out of a proceeding under Sec. 20 (3) of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (in brevity "U.P.C.H. Act"). Petitioner no.1 has been proposed Chak no.652. Feeling aggrieved with respect to placement of his chak, he has moved an objection under Sec. 20 of the U.P.C.H. Act, which was allowed vide order dtd. 7/5/2019 passed by the Consolidation Officer (in brevity 'C.O.'). Likewise, petitioner no.2 has also moved an application under Sec. 20 of the U.P.C.H. Act showing his grievance against allotment of chak. His objection was allowed vide order dtd. 18/6/2019. Feeling aggrieved against both the orders, Kalyan Singh (respondent no.3) has filed two appeals. Appeal No.249 (Kalyan Singh vs. Narayan) was filed against the order dtd. 7/5/2019 passed by the C.O. in Case No.08 of 2018-19 and another appeal was filed against the order dtd. 18/6/2019 passed by the C.O. in Case No.80 of 2018-19. Vide order dtd. 5/7/2019, the Settlement Officer of Consolidation (in brevity 'S.O.C.') has allowed both the appeals by setting aside both the orders under challenged in the appeals and remitted the matter before the C.O. to decide the same afresh after giving opportunity of hearing to the respondent no.3. While allowing the appeals, the S.O.C. has given a specific finding that both the orders passed by the C.O. were ex-parte, behind the back of appellant (respondent no.3 herein) and without giving him an opportunity of hearing. It is further observed that the appellant has totally been displaced from his road side original holding and has been allotted Udaan Chak over some other place. It has also been observed that the appellant has been allotted four chaks by the C.O., and that too, without prior permission of the Deputy Director of Consolidation (in brevity 'D.D.C.'), which is a clear cut violation of the provisions as enshrined in the Proviso (1) to Sec. 19 (1) (e) of the U.P.C.H. Act. The S.O.C. has also made a specific observation that the present matter appears to be such a case, which has been decided ex-parte without any information to the other side. In the light of aforesaid observation, he was of the view that the orders passed by the C.O. were not tenable in the eyes of law and were liable to the rejected. Against the order passed by the S.O.C., two revisions were preferred which have been dismissed by a common order dtd. 5/4/2021, which is under challenge in the present petition.