VIJAY PAL Vs. STATE OF U. P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel representing respondent nos. 1 to 3 as well as learned counsel for the private respondent no. 4.

(2.) By way of filing the instant writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the orders passed by the consolidation authorities in two separate proceedings i.e. under Sec. 9-B of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act (in brevity "U.P.C.H. Act") and under Sec. 42-A of U.P.C.H. Act.

(3.) Grievance of the petitioner is that consolidation authorities have incorrectly fixed two different exchange value of plot no. 158. For some of the portion it has been fixed 90 paise and for remaining portion it has been fixed 70 paise. In this backdrop of the fact, the petitioner has initially invoked proceeding under Sec. 9-B of U.P.C.H. Act and after becoming unsuccessful in the said proceeding, he has resorted to another proceeding under Sec. 42-A of U.P.C.H. Act. As such, the petitioner has demanded to deduct the exchange value of plot no. 158 from 90 paise to 70 paise.