VIJAY KUMAR Vs. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF CONSOLIDATION, GONDA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Shri U.S. Sahai, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Sanjeev Saxena, learned counsel for O.P. No. 2 who appears through caveat. This writ petition is directed against order dated 12.11.2013 passed by D.D.C. Gonda in revision no. 912 of 2012 -13/ 929 of 2013 -14 Ram Asrey vs. Ram Niwas. Initially the revision had been allowed on 21.4.1980. Against said order writ petition no. 1782 (Consolidation) of 1980 was filed in this High Court which was allowed on 26.11.2012 and matter was remanded to the D.D.C. Gonda. After remand D.D.C. Gonda through impugned order again allowed the revision and maintained its earlier order dated 21.4.1980. One of the reasons given in the impugned order is that through the earlier order dated 21.4.1980 changes in the chaks of several persons were made, however, apart from chakdar no. 24, i.e.,Kamta the petitioner's predecessor in interest no other party had made any complaint/grievance. This reasoning is not very sound in view of the earlier remand order passed by this Court. The earlier writ petition had been filed by Kamta however during the pendency of the said writ petition he had died and was survived by Vijay Kumar adopted son, the present petitioner. Kamta had also sold the plots which had been given to him by the D.D.C. through order dated 21.4.1980 to his adopted son, the present petitioner. Earlier order of this Court is Annexure 6 to this writ petition. Initially in the revision Ram Asrey was applicant revisionist. O.P. No. 2 Shiv Nath Verma is his vendee.

(2.) EARLIER the writ petition was allowed only on the ground that the petitioner Kamta Prasad had not been impleaded in the revision initially but had been added as party after conclusion of the arguments of the revision. Accordingly without deciding anything on merit or touching the controversy the matter was remanded to be decided after hearing the petitioner.

(3.) ONE of the arguments of learned counsel for petitioner is that reduction in area of Kamta was more than 60%. In para 20 of the writ petition it has been stated that initially total area of Kamta was 1.5 acre, however, in sector 12 he was given land of very high valuation having an area of 0.6 acres only and it was in violation of provision of U.P.C.H. Act where more than 25 % increase or decrease in area is not permissible. However, from contents of para 29 of the writ petition itself it is clear that Kamta was having other land also and it was not his total land. Under section 19 U.P.C.H. Act reduction or addition of more than 25% is not permissible in the total land held by the tenure -holder and not different pieces of land or lands situate in different sectors. Para 29 of the writ petition is quoted below : -