RAMJEET Vs. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF CONSOLIDATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Sri N.L. Pandey, for the petitioner and Sri P.N. Kushwaha, who has filed caveat on behalf of respondents -4, 7 and 11. The writ petition has been filed against the order of Deputy Director of Consolidation (respondent -1) dated 30.11.2013, passed in chak allotment proceedings, under U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). Plot 109 (area 0.334 Hectare) was the original holdings of Ramjeet and others (chak holders 238). Ramjeet and others (chak holders 238) was proposed single chak on plots 109 (area 0.140 hectare) and 113 (area 0.178 hectare). Plots 95, 110, 111, 113 and 146 were original holdings of Harinath Sudesh, Lochan, Kanhaiya, Sechan (respondents -4, 7, 8, 9 and 11) and Smt. Parwati and Harihar. Smt. Parwati, Subhash, Harinath, Lochan, Kanhaiya, Sechan and Harihar filed their separate objections (registered as Case Nos. 456, 457, 358, 459, 460, 461 and 462) under section 20 of the Act, claiming for allotment of their chaks on plots 110 and 113. The Consolidation Officer, consolidated and decided the aforesaid objections by order dated 5.9.2012 and held that it was not possible to allot chaks to all the co -tenure holders of plots 110 and 113. However, he partly allowed the objections.

(2.) HARIHAR filed an appeal (registered as Appeal No. 858), Madan Mohan filed an appeal (registered as Appeal No. 861), Lochan filed an appeal (registered as Appeal No. 865), Kanhaiya filed an appeal (registered as Appeal No. 866), Sechan filed an appeal (registered as Appeal No. 862), Subhash filed an appeal (registered as Appeal No. 864) and Hari Nath filed an appeal (registered as Appeal No. 863) from the aforesaid order. Settlement Officer, Consolidation, consolidated the aforesaid appeals and heard together, who by order dated 4.7.2013, held that the appellants were allotted chaks on their original holdings. In case chak of Ramjeet and others (chak holder 238) is affected then several chaks would be affected. He therefore taking some area of plot 113, which was left as bachat land partly satisfied the demand of the appellants.

(3.) THE Counsel for the petitioner submitted that plot No. 109 was the original holding of the petitioner. Plot 113 was lying in the vicinity of the original holding of the petitioner as such the petitioner was allotted a single chak on plots 109 (area 0.140 hectare) and 113 (area 0.178 hectare). Settlement Officer Consolidation while rejecting the demands of the respondents for allotment of their chak on plot 113 recorded reasons that in case their demands were accepted then chaks of various persons would be affected. However, Deputy Director of Consolidation without recording any findings and without considering the reasons given by Settlement Officer Consolidation has disturbed the chak of the petitioner. Plots 107 and 108 which are now allotted in the chak of the petitioner are the land of low quality. Due to allotment of these plots in the chak of the petitioner, material prejudice has been caused to the petitioner. The Order of Deputy Director of Consolidation is illegal and liable to be set aside.