RAM BISARJAN SINGH Vs. DY.DIRECTOR OF CONSOLIDATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri B.L. Verma for the respondent/applicant and Sri Dinesh Kumar Pandey, for the petitioner in the aforementioned recall application. The writ petition has been heard and allowed on 14.11.2013, in the Court. During the arguments, the Counsel for the petitioner argued that plot No. 291 was purchased by the petitioner from Krishna Kumar, one of the co-sharers of Babban (respondent-2). This fact could not be controverted by the Counsel for the respondent during arguments as such in paragraphs-3, 6 and 8 of the judgment dated 14.11.2013, it has been noted that the petitioner has purchased the share of Krishna Kumar, co-sharer of Babban. The Counsel for the respondent then filed an application on 19.11.2013 for recall of the order, on the ground that statement of the fact as noted in the judgment dated 14.11.2013 that the petitioner had purchased the share of Krishna Kumar, co-sharer of Babban, in plot No. 291 was incorrect. This application came before this Court, then arguments were again heard on 21.11.2013, on this application.

(2.) The Counsel for the respondent submits that the arguments raised by the Counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner had purchased share of Krishna Kumar was incorrect. As the judgment dated 14.11.2013 proceeds on incorrect facts as such it is liable to be recalled. He further submitted that an area of 0.020 hectare of plot No. 291 was left for extension of general abadi, which is lying in front of the house of the son of the petitioner as such he had occupied this land. The petitioner got allotted an area of 0.016 hectare of plot No. 291, in the chak of his wife and an area of 0.144 hectare was allotted in the chak of the petitioner. Plot No. 291 is a roadside land having commercial value as such it could not be allotted to the petitioner. By the impugned order, Deputy Director of Consolidation has allotted only a small portion of 0.048 hectare to respondent-2, although he was co-sharer of 1/4 share in it. Order of Deputy Director of Consolidation does not suffer from any illegality and the writ petition was liable to be dismissed but it has been allowed due to misrepresentation of the fact by the petitioner as such the order dated 14.11.2013 be recalled and the writ petition be dismissed.

(3.) The Counsel for the petitioner submits that in paragraph-5 of the writ petition, it has been stated that share of Krishna Kumar in plot No. 291 was purchased by Vijay Kumar, Raj Kumar and Smt. Nirmala Devi (respondents-3 to 5). At the time of preparation of Provisional Consolidation Scheme, the petitioner and Vijay Kumar, Raj Kumar and Smt. Nirmala Devi (respondents-3 to 5) entered into a compromise before Assistant Consolidation Officer on 3.11.2009, in which plot Nos. 331 and 338 (total area 0.540 hectare), Which were original holdings of the petitioner, were agreed to be allotted to Vijay Kumar, Raj Kumar and Smt. Nirmala Devi (respondents-3 to 5) as these plots were lying in front of their house and they agreed that their share in plot No. 291 be allotted in the chak of the petitioner, which was lying in front of his house. In pursuance of this compromise. Assistant Consolidation Officer proposed plot No. 291 in the chak of the petitioner. The petitioner has also filed copy of the compromise as Annexure-2 to the writ petition. On the basis of this compromise, the arguments were raised that the petitioner was entitled for allotment of the chak on plot No. 291 but under some confusion, it has come that the petitioner had purchased plot No. 291. He further pointed out that Settlement Officer, Consolidation, in his order dated 8.6.2010, held that other chak of Babban on plot No. 274 was also on roadside as such his claim for allotment of the chak on plot No. 291 was not found suitable, however, Deputy-Director of Consolidation has illegally ignored this fact.