AWADH NARAIN Vs. DEPUTY DIRECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is petition under Article 226 of the Constitution by one Awadh Narain. He has challenged the order of the Deputy Director of Consolidation/Additional District Magistrate (Finance and Revenue) Chitrakoot, respondent No. 1 dated 26.4.2012. Shorn of unnecessary details, the relevant facts leading to the present petition are that the petitioner's village was brought under the consolidation operation under Section 4(2) of the U.P. Consolidation of Holding Act, 1953 (for short 1953 'Act'). The petitioner was proposed two Chaks comprising of Plot Nos. 2150, 254/3 and 254/4, the total area 1.058 hectares and his second Chak on Plots Nos. 140, 141, 142 and 405, area 1.395 hectares. The details of number of chaks have been mentioned in para 5 of writ petition. The respondent No. 2 is the chak holder No. 598, he was proposed two chaks in the Provisional Consolidation Scheme. This fact is evident from CH Form 23, which has been annexed by the petitioner as Annexure-2 to the writ petition. The respondent No. 3 is the chak holder No. 559, is the real brother of respondent No. 2 and he was originally allotted one third share in plot No. 116. The petitioner was not satisfied with the proposed scheme and he wanted his original holding of plot No. 105. He has filed an objection under Section 20(2) of U.P. Consolidation of Holding Act, 1953. The claim of the petitioner was decided by the Consolidation Officer, Mau by order dated 4.3.2011. The claim of the petitioner was partly accepted.

(2.) Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner filed appeal before the Settlement Officer in consolidation which was registered as appeal No. 59. The aforesaid appeal was decided and the order of the Consolidation Officer was modified, as the petitioner's Chak No. 2150 was abolished and the new Chak was carved out. The petitioner was satisfied with the order of the Settlement Officer and as such he did not file revision before respondent No. 1.

(3.) It is to be noted that the Consolidation Officer vide his order dated 4.3.2011 has also altered/modified the second chak of respondent No. 2, which was proposed of Plot Nos. 116, 117 and 118. The respondent No. 2, aggrieved by the said modification, filed an appeal under Section 21(1) of the Act against the order of the Consolidation Officer dated 4.3.2012 before the Settlement Officer Consolidation. His appeal was registered as Appeal No. 130 of 2011. By the same order vis-a-vis 4.3.2011, the Consolidation Officer has also modified the chak of respondent No. 4 of Plot No. 104, 105, 116, 117 and 118. The respondent No. 3 like respondent No. 2 who have been to his brother also preferred an appeal under Section 21(2) before the Settlement Officer. His appeal was registered as Appeal No. 134 of 2011. The Consolidation Officer in the mean time vide another order dated 2.7.2011 in respect of the other tenure holders modified their chaks by the said order. Again the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 were affected and their chaks were further modified. However, respondent Nos. 2 and 3 did not prefer any appeal against the order of Consolidation Officer dated 2.7.2011.