RADHEY SHYAM Vs. STATE OF U. P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for petitioners, learned Standing Counsel representing respondents No. 1 to 4 and learned counsel for private respondent No.5.

(2.) Grievance of the petitioners is that Deputy Director of Consolidation has illegally allowed the restoration application filed on behalf of contesting respondents, vide order dtd. 13/9/2022, against the previous order dtd. 13/12/2005. Petitioners are aggrieved as well with the order dtd. 4/1/2023 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation by which restoration application filed by them against the order dtd. 13/9/2022 has been rejected.

(3.) Facts culled out from the averments made in the writ petition are that the present writ petition is arising out of restoration application filed in the reference proceeding. Settlement Officer of Consolidation has passed order dtd. 24/8/1985 in appeal, arising out of proceeding under Sec. 21(1) of U.P.C.H. Act, filed on behalf of respondent No.5 proposing the entire area of his original holding i.e. plot No.216 in his chak. Said order became final up to the stage of Deputy Director of Consolidation on revision being filed on behalf of the petitioners. It appears that at subsequent stage, petitioners have filed one another revision to adjust the valuation of Rs.2.11 paise which was left to be adjusted in their chak during the provisional consolidation scheme. Aforesaid revision was allowed by order dtd. 18/11/2002 passed by Deputy Director of Consolidation proposing the valuation of Rs.2.11 paise over plot No.729 M having measuring area 0.070 hectare. In pursuance of order dtd. 24/8/1995 and order dtd. 18/1/2002, a reference proceedings had been finalized by order dtd. 25/4/2005. Amendment chart appended to the reference order dtd. 25/4/2005 reveals that contesting respondent No.5 (chak holder No.324) has been proposed chak over plot No.216 and 193. Petitioners (chak holder No.269) have been given area over plot No.216 in place of plot No.729/7M measuring area 0.070 hectare, having valuation of Rs.2.11 paise. Having been aggrieved against the reference order dtd. 25/4/2005 respondent No.5 has filed the restoration application alleging therein that after the order dtd. 24/8/1995 no area remained over plot No.216, which has finally been adjudicated upon in his favour, therefore, by the reference order dtd. 25/4/2005 petitioners have illegally been allotted chak over plot no.216. It is further averred in the restoration application that the order dtd. 25/4/2005 has been passed ex-parte without affording him any opportunity of hearing. Deputy Director of Consolidation, vide its impugned order dtd. 13/9/2022, has allowed the restoration application dtd. 13/12/2005 and, simultaneously, slightly modified the reference order dtd. 25/4/2005 by which area in question having valuation of Rs.2.11 paise belongs to petitioners has been adjusted over plot No.193 towards the south side adjoining the chak road and the respondent No.5 has been shifted over his original holding i.e. plot No.216, meaning thereby area of both the parties have been interchanged between them. Deputy Director of Consolidation, on restoration application being filed on behalf of the petitioners against the order dtd. 13/9/2022, has dismissed the restoration application, vide order dtd. 4/1/2023, with categorical finding that previous order dtd. 13/9/2022 was passed after hearing both the parties on merits, therefore, there is no occasion to entertain the restoration application against the order dtd. 13/9/2022 passed on merits.