BAL KISHUN Vs. C.R.O.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. Niraj Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. A.P. Singh, learned counsel for respondent nos.3 and 4.

(2.) The present writ petition has been filed for quashing the impugned order dtd. 27/9/2006 passed by respondent no.2 and order dtd. 24/2/2009 passed by respondent no.1 in the allotment of Chak proceedings.

(3.) The brief facts of the case are that petitioner is Chak Holder No.154 and respondent nos. 3 and 4 are Chak Holder No.156, both parties are co-sharer accordingly Assistant Consolidation Officer proposed Chak to both parties according to the provisions of the Act specially in respect to Plot No.36 and 37 as Plot No.36 was not fit for cultivation so both parties were equally adjusted on Plot No.36 and 37. Against the proposal of Assistant Consolidation Officer, an objection under Sec. 20 of U.P.C.H. Act was filed by father of respondent nos.3 and 4 claiming Chak on Plot No.7. The excess area given on Ist and IIIrd Chak of respondent nos.3 and 4 be excluded and the same be adjusted on his original Plot no. 7. The shape of IInd Chak on Plot No.37 be modified to the effect that Chak be given on Plot No.37 in eastern side in North-South length. Petitioner also filed objection to the extant that double entry in respect of Chak Marg be expunged. The Consolidation Officer by order dtd. 27/1/2006 allowed the objection of respondent no.3 and 4 as well as of petitioner partly. Against the order of Consolidation Officer dtd. 27/1/2006, petitioner and respondent nos.3 and 4 filed their appeals separately under Sec. 21(2) of U.P.C.H. Act which were numbered as Appeal No.1178 and 1144 respectively. The Assistant Settlement Officer of Consolidation by order dtd. 12/7/2006 disposed of both the appeals reducing the Chakout area of Plot No.37/2 from 218 air to 56 air in the eastern side of abadi. Petitioner was given the Northern side and respondents were given in Southern side of the Plot No.37/2. The Chak allotted at the stage of Consolidation Officer stage was set aside. Petitioner's claim for allotment in the western side on Plot No.7 taking into account the petitioner's well, was accepted. The claim of the respondents in respect of Chak marg was accepted and Chak marg was given to him in Northern side. Against the order dtd. 12/7/1996, respondent no.4 filed a restoration application before respondent no.2 who has allowed the restoration application by order dtd. 27/9/2006 and schedule/chart was also amended accordingly. Petitioner filed a Revision No.7, under Sec. 48 of U.P.C.H. Act against the order dtd. 27/9/2006 with the prayer to set aside the order dtd. 27/9/2006 and maintain the earlier schedule dtd. 12/7/2006 and the stage of Assistant Consolidation Officer with respect to allotment be restored in the interest of justice. Respondent no.1 heard the Revision No.7 filed by the petitioner but respondent no.1 by impugned order dtd. 24/2/2009 dismissed the revision without considering the petitioner's case.