NAND KISHORE Vs. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF CONSOLIDATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By means of this writ petition, petitioners have challenged the judgment of the Deputy Director of Consolidation dated 30.9.1995 (Annexure-9 to the writ petition) and that of the Settlement Officer Consolidation dated 31.10.1994 and 18.7.1995 (Annexures-6 and 7 respectively).

(2.) For the purpose of disposal of the writ petition, it will be useful to summarize the facts. Proceedings are under Section 20 of the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act which is in respect to adjustment of chaks between the chak holders. Petitioners are chak holder No. 113 whereas respondent No. 3 is chak holder No. 281 and respondent Nos. 4 to 6 are chak holder No. 280 which was allotted to them at the stage of Assistant Consolidation Officer, At the initial stage petitioners were given two chaks, i.e., 1st on plot No. 282, etc. and second on plot No. 442, etc. Against the proposed allotment petitioners filed objection with the claim that their second chak be abolished and entire land be given on/near plot No. 282. Consolidation Officer allowed petitioners objection. On filing appeal by opposite party judgment of the Consolidation Officer was reversed and petitioners were given three chaks. On the plea that the judgment of the Settlement Officer Consolidation was ex parte, restoration was filed by the petitioners which was also dismissed and thereafter revision filed by the petitioners also met to the same fate and thus all the three judgments of the Deputy Director of Consolidation and Settlement Officer Consolidation are under challenge before this Court.

(3.) Submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that petitioners claim for grant of one chak on plot No. 282 which happens to be their largest part of holdings was allowed by the Consolidation Officer in the light of the consent given by the Rajkali w/o Shitla Prasad who was mainly affected by that adjustment on account of which petitioners chak became one but the Settlement Officer Consolidation without assigning any reason has disturbed the adjustment as made by the Consolidation Officer on account of which number of chak of the petitioners became three. Submission is that respondents have not filed any objection against the proposed allotment by the Assistant Consolidation Officer and it is only on the petitioner's objection change have taken place and thus in any view of the matter petitioner's position cannot be made more verse, as it stood at the stage of Assistant Consolidation Officer. They were having two chaks to which there was no objection by anybody and now they have been allowed three chaks by the order of Settlement Officer Consolidation which on the facts cannot be justified. It is further submitted that order of the Settlement Officer Consolidation was in gross violation of principle of natural justice which is clear from the order sheet itself as no notices were ever issued/served on the petitioners. Submission is that the Deputy Director of Consolidation has also dismissed the revision without considering petitioner's inconvenience/grievance and the hardship just by simply stating the inconvenience of the opposite parties. Lastly, it is argued that in plot No. 282 petitioners are having their boring and thus they will be deprived of their irrigation facility. On these score prayer for interference in the impugned orders have been made.