ASRAF HUSSAIN Vs. DDC

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri Rakesh Pandey for the petitioner and Sri Rajeshwar Singh for respondent-4.

(2.) The writ petition has been filed for quashing the order of Deputy Director of Consolidation, Moradabad dated 22.02.1996, passed in Revision No. 586, Dharam Singh Vs. Asraf Hussain, in chak allotment proceedings under U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act").

(3.) Plot No. 189/3 (area 0.434 hectare) and 189/4 (area 0.100 hectare) of village Pali, pargana Sambhal, district Moradabad were the original holding of Dharam Singh (respondent-4), chak holder No. 134 and plot No. 276/2 (area 1.655 hectare) was the original holding of Asraf Hussain (the petitioner) chak holder No. 183. Assistant Consolidation Officer proposed a chak to the petitioner on plot Nos. 183, 189/1, 189/2, 189/3 and 189/4 (total area 1.816 hectare). It may be mentioned that initially plot No. 189/2 (area 0.139 hectare) and plot No. 189/4 (area 0.100 hectare) were left as achak and valuation of these plots was not fixed at the stage of Section 8 of the Act. Dharam Singh (respondent-4) filed an objection on 21.09.1991, under Section 20 of the Act against his second proposed chak on plot No. 276/2, claiming his chak on plot No. 189/3 etc., stating therein that plot No. 189/3 and 189/4 were his original holdings where he had his abadi and 'samadhi' of his father-in-law on which the petitioner was allotted an 'uran' chak and he was allotted an 'uran' chak on plot No. 276/2. The objection of respondent-4 was heard by the Consolidation Officer along with other objections of the village, who by order dated 20.05.1992 dismissed the objection without considering his grievances. Respondent-4 filed two appeals (registered as Appeal No. 2595 and 2596) from the aforesaid order. The appeals were heard by Settlement Officer Consolidation, Moradabad, who by dated 22.10.1992 dismissed the appeals. Respondent-4 filed a revision (registered as Revision No. 1793 of 1993) from the aforesaid order. The revision was heard by Deputy Director of Consolidation, Moradabad, who directed the Assistant Consolidation Officer to make spot inspection and submit report. Assistant Consolidation Officer after spot inspection submitted his report dated 06.03.1993. The revision was heard thereafter by respondent-1, who by order dated 20.03.1993 allowed the revision and remanded the case to Settlement Officer Consolidation to pass a fresh order after giving opportunity of hearing to the parties and making spot inspection.