HIRDAY RAM Vs. DEPUTY DIRECTOR CONSOLIDATION, DISTRICT FAIZABAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Sri Rajesh Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Sri Vijai Bahadur Verma, who appears for opposite party no. 4, Ram Nath Yadav. Appearance has been filed by Sri C.L. Yadav, on behalf of respondent nos. 4 and 5 on 10.2.2014.

(2.) THE dispute in the writ petition relates to allotment of chaks and is primarily confined to plot no. 92 wherein the petitioner and respondent no. 5 have half share each. Under the provisional consolidation scheme the petitioner was proposed a chak on his original holding of plot no. 92 including therein area of plot nos. 93/1 and 93/2. Aggrieved by the allotment, the petitioner filed objection under section 20(1) of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act (for short, CH Act) claiming that his chak be carved out on plot no. 92 alone. The Consolidation Officer by his order dated 23.5.2013 rejected the objection. However, the Settlement Officer, Consolidation (for short, SOC) vide order dated 22.8.2013 allowed the appeal of the petitioner and allotted the entire area of plot no. 92 in his chak. Still not satisfied, the petitioner filed a revision before opposite party no. 1 demanding a nali and a chak -road for approaching his house situated in plot no. 92.

(3.) ANOTHER revision was preferred by respondent no. 5, Savitri Devi, who demanded her chak of plot no. 92 as proposed under the provisional consolidation scheme on the ground that this would make her chak adjacent to that of her husband, respondent no. 4, which would facilitate agricultural operations.