RAJ BAHADUR Vs. DY. DIRECTOR OF CONSOLIDATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Sri R.K. Pandey for the petitioner and Sri Ram Abhilash Maurya for the contesting respondents. The writ petition has been filed against the orders of Consolidation Authorities passed in chak allotment proceeding under U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act").

(2.) PLOT Nos. 10, 510, 400/1, 400/2, 405/1 which were the original holdings of the petitioner and the contesting respondents. In some of the plots the petitioner was having 1/2 share and in some of the plots he was having 1/4 share. Assistant Consolidation Officer proposed three chaks to the petitioner. The first chak was proposed on plot No. 405 etc. which was his original holding. The second chak was proposed on plot No. 532, which was also his original holding and the third chak was proposed on plot No. 121 etc. which was a uran chak of the petitioner. The petitioner filed an objection under section 20 of the Act for deleting his third chak and allotting its valuation in the chak on plot Nos. 771 or 776. The Consolidation Officer by order dated 28.8.2000 decided the objection of the petitioner alongwith other chak objections of the village. By the order of Consolidation Officer the first chak of the petitioner allotted to him on plot No. 405 was abolished and in its place new chak on plot Nos. 774, 776 etc. was carved out. The petitioner filed an appeal against the order of the Consolidation Officer and before the Settlement Officer, Consolidation the petitioner prayed for abolition of his third chak on plot No. 121 etc. and allotting his chak on plot Nos. 405, 771, 797 etc. The Settlement Officer, Consolidation by order dated 31.3.2001 instead of abolishing the third chak of the petitioner reduced the area of his second chak on plot No. 532 and the valuation so reduced was allotted in plot No. 797. The petitioner filed a revision against the aforesaid order before the Deputy Director of Consolidation, which has been dismissed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation by order dated 26.11.2001 holding that it is not possible to enhance the area of the chak of the petitioner on plot No. 797. Hence, this writ petition has been filed.

(3.) THE Counsel for the respondents in reply to the aforesaid arguments submits that the petitioner has been changing his demand at the various stages in such circumstances, the orders have been rightly passed by the consolidation authorities and no interference is required by this Court.