RAM KATHIN Vs. D D C & OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri Abhay Kumar Tiwari, counsel for the petitioner and Ramesh Kumar Shukla, counsel for respondents-4 and 5.

(2.) The writ petition has been filed for quashing the orders of Deputy Director of Consolidation, Ballia (respondent-1) dated 11.01.1999 passed in Revision No. 1374, Ram Kathin Vs. Sri Ram and others (Annexure-7), Revision No. 1240, Ram Kathin Vs. State and others (Annexure-8) and Revision No. 1498, Sri Ram Vs. State and others (Annexure-13) and orders dated 17.06.1999 passed in Restoration Application No. 486 (Annexure-11) and Restoration Application No. 485 (Annexure-15), order of Assistant Settlement Officer Consolidation, Ballia (respondent-2) dated 01.02.1997 (Annexure-4) and order of Consolidation Officer Ist, Ballia (respondent-3) dated 04.01.1994 (Annexure-3), in chak allotment proceedings under U.P. Consolidation of Holdings the Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as the Act).

(3.) The petitioner was allotted chak No. 233, proposing three chaks by Assistant Consolidation Officer, i.e. first chak on plot No. 542/11 etc. of an area of 1.49 acre, second chak on plot No. 443/28/2 etc. of an area 1.05 acre and third chak on plot No. 550/2 etc. of an area 0.245 acre, in chak carvation proceedings. The petitioner filed an objection under Section 20 of the Act, claiming that at least 0.40 acre land on plot No. 550/2 be allotted in his third chak and shortage of his original valuation be completed as he was allotted less valuation than original valuation. The objection of the petitioner was heard by respondent-3, who by his order dated 04.01.1994 found that the petitioner was allotted more area on plot No. 550/2 than his original share in this plot as such his chak at this place cannot be enlarged. On this finding objection of the petitioner was dismissed by order dated 04.01.1994. The petitioner filed an appeal (registered as Appeal No. 1641) from the aforesaid order. The appeal of the petitioner was heard by respondent-2, who by his order dated 01.02.1997 allowed the appeal of the petitioner and completed the valuation, which was less than his original valuation.