ACHHAIBAR YADAV Vs. STATE OF U. P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) All these writ petitions have been filed challenging the order dtd. 14/1/2020 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Varanasi (hereinafter referred to as the DDC) in Reference No. 660 of 2019 (Gram Sabha Vs. Ramashray and others), under Sec. 48 (3) of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act (herein after referred to as the U.P.C.H. Act), Village-Rampur Pargana-Kolasala, District-Varanasi, whereby aforementioned reference has been allowed. The alleged order of the Tahsildar dtd. 26/5/1952 has been set aside. It has also been directed that all the plots recorded in Khata No. 585 in the Khatauni of 1366 to 1368 Fasli, as Banjar shall be re-recorded in the Banjar Khata.

(2.) That Village-Rampur, Pargana-Kolasala, District-Varanasi, where the land in dispute is situate was brought under Consolidation operations by means of a Gazette notification dtd. 9/8/1972 published under Sec. 4 (2) of the U.P.C.H. Act.

(3.) It transpires from record that no objection under Sec. 9A(2) of the U.P.C.H. Act was filed by the Gaon Sabha concerned claiming right, title or interest over the land in dispute. Land in dispute, which was part of the consolidation area, was accorded valuation. No objection under Sec. 9-B of the U.P.C.H. Act was filed by the Gaon Sabha disputing the valuation accorded to the land in dispute. As such, the land in dispute was included in the Chak Allotment Scheme. Resultantly, new tenures came to be allotted to different land holders on the land in dispute by virtue of the provisions contained in Sec. 19 of the U.P.C.H. Act.