RAM KUMAR SINGH Vs. D.D.C.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Sri Vivek Kumar Pandey for the petitioner and Sri Vijyendra Prakash Triapthi for respondent -4. The writ petition has been filed against the order of the Deputy Director of Consolidation dated 30.6.2014 passed in chak allotment matter.

(2.) IT is stated that Plot Nos. 2993, 2994, 2995, 3000, and 3003 were the original holdings of the petitioner and his other co -sharers. Apart from this Plot Nos. 563, 565 etc. were also the original holding of the petitioner. The petitioner executed a sale -deed dated 13.5.1992 in respect of his share in plot No. 2327. It is stated that although against the proposed chak the petitioner filed an objection but the objection was dismissed by the Consolidation Officer by order dated 3.9.1997. The petitioner remained silent and did not file any appeal within the time allowed under section 21 of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953. The chak matters have already been confirmed. Thereafter Fakeere in whose chak plot Nos. 2999, 3000, 3003 and 3014 were allotted, executed a sale -deed in favour of respondent -4 on 12.6.2007. The petitioner filed a highly time barred appeal on 11.1.2007 against the order of the Consolidation Officer dated 30.9.1997. In the meantime, Fakeere died and his heirs were substituted in his place but neither the petitioner nor the heirs of Fakeere disclosed this fact that the land of plot Nos. 2999, 3000, 3003 and 3014 had already been transferred by Fakeere during his lifetime to respondent -4 and the Settlement Officer Consolidation passed an order allowing the appeal of the petitioner by order dated 29.9.2009. On coming to know about the aforesaid order respondent -4 filed a revision before the Deputy Director of Consolidation. The Deputy Director of Consolidation by the impugned order found that the petitioner has already executed a sale -deed in respect of his share in plot No. 2327 and the chak which has been allotted to the petitioner was on his original holding on plot Nos. 563, 565 etc. The petitioner has not challenged the order of the Consolidation Officer for about 10 years and in the meantime the chaks have already been confirmed. Therefore, Fakeere has transferred the land in favour of respondent -4 and concealing the fact relating to transfer, the appeal was allowed and the chak of respondent -4 has been disturbed without giving any opportunity of hearing to her. It has been further found that chak of Fakeere was allotted on land of low valuation while by the impugned order the Settlement Officer Consolidation has allotted him chak on high valuation land due to which land of respondent -4 has been substantially reduced. On this finding the revision was allowed and the order of the Settlement Officer, Consolidation dated 29.9.2009 was set aside and chaks of the stage of Assistant Consolidation Officer as allotted to the parties were restored. Hence this writ petition has been filed.

(3.) I have considered the arguments of the Counsel for the parties and examined the record.