GYAN PRAKASH Vs. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF CONSOLIDATION ALLAHABAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri A.B. Singh, counsel for the petitioners and Shri G.N. Verma appearing for the respondent Nos. 2 to 5. Counter and rejoinder-affidavits have been exchanged. As prayed by counsel for both the parties, the writ petition itself is being disposed of.

(2.) The writ petition arises out of proceedings under Section 20 of the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act. 1953. The petitioner No. 1 was allotted chak No. 1058 in the consolidation proceedings. Petitioner No. 2 was allotted chak No. 983. The original holdings of the petitioners included plot Nos. 1247/1, 1247/2. 1247/3, 1284, 1285, 1496 and 1399 in which plots petitioners had l/20th share. Plot No. 1058 was also original holding of both the petitioners having l/I5th share. The original holding of the respondent No. 2 Smt. Dhanno Devi consisted of only one plot, namely, 1061 (half share). The original holdings of the respondent Nos. 3, 4 and 5 consisted of plot Nos. 941/1, 941/2, 941/3. 1062 and half share in plot No. 1061. The Assistant Consolidation Officer proposed chak to the petitioner No. 1 at plot Nos. 1058, 1059 and 1061. Petitioner No. 2 was also proposed chak on plot Nos. 1058, 1059 and 1061.

(3.) Objection was filed by the respondent Nos. 2, 3 and 4 against the allotment made to the petitioners. The respondent Nos. 2, 3 and 4 objected to the allotment of plot No. 1061 to the petitioner. It was claimed by the objectors that the plot No. 1061 is the road side land which is the original holding of the objector hence petitioners were not entitled to have allotment of chak on plot No. 1061. The respondent No. 2 Smt. Dhanno Devi was allotted one chak of plot No. 1060A, 1061, 1077/1. 1078. The respondent Nos. 3, 4 and 5 were allotted three chaks; first chak on plot Nos. 1058. 1059, 1061 and 1062 ; second chak on plot Nos. 1061. 1062. 1065/1. 1065/2, 1066/1 and 1077/1 and third chak on plot Nos. 941/1, 941/2, and 941/3. The Consolidation Officer by an order dated 3.4.1996 decided the chak objections by which chaks of respondent Nos. 2 to 4 were affected. The respondent No. 2 and respondent Nos. 3, 4 and 5 filed two appeals. The respondent No. 2 claimed in the appeal that the Consolidation Officer has illegally made adjustment in her chak. It was claimed by her that she is the original tenure holder of plot No. 1061 in which she has half share. The total area, according to her share, is 3025. It was stated that the Consolidation Officer has given Udan Chak to her on plot Nos. 1056, 1058, 1059 and 1082. The Settlement Officer of Consolidation dismissed both the appeals. The Settlement Officer of Consolidation held that both the appellants were given chak on road side and the respondents (to the appeal) have been allotted chak taking their original holdings. Two revisions were filed by the respondent No. 2 and respondent Nos. 3, 4 and 5. Both the revisions have been allowed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation vide order dated 31.8.1998. The Deputy Director of Consolidation in his order held that the respondent No. 2 had allotted only one chak on plot No. 1061 and her second chak given on plot No. 1058 is Udan Chak. The Deputy Director of Consolidation held that the respondent No. 2 is entitled to her single chak on plot No. 1061 which is her original holding. With regard to respondent Nos. 3, 4 and 5, the Deputy Director of Consolidation found that the respondent Nos. 2, 3 and 4 have not been allotted area of plot No. 1061 according to their share. It was further held by the Deputy Director of Consolidation that both the petitioners have no original holding near the road whereas they have been allotted chak on plot No. 1061 which is on the road. The Deputy Director of Consolidation removed the chak of the petitioner from plot No. 1061 and directed for giving them chak to their original holding at plot No. 1058. The said order of the Deputy Director of Consolidation has been challenged by the petitioners in this writ petition.