ANITA Vs. STATE OF U. P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. Raghuraj Singh, learned Counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Om Narayan Dwivedi, learned Counsel for respondent No. 5 and Mr. Tarun Gaur, learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents.

(2.) Brief facts of the case are that petitioner is chak holder No. 2, respondent No. 5 is chak Holder No. 595 and respondent No. 7 is chak Holder No. 246. The original holdings of the petitioner are 178/2 M and 178/3, 179, 185, 298/1, 298/2. Petitioner was proposed two chaks by the Assistant Consolidation Officer. First chak on Plot Nos. 178/3, 179, 183/3, 195 and 184 and Second chak on Plot Nos. 298/2 and 300. The original holdings of respondent No. 5 are Plot Nos. 298 and 299. respondent No. 5 was proposed two chaks, First chak on Plot Nos. 197/1, 198/2 and second chak on Plot Nos. 298-M and 299-M. Against the proposal of Assistant Consolidation Officer, chak objections were filed and decided by Consolidation Officer vide order dtd. 28/9/2022, allotting chak to petitioner on plot Nos. 298 and 299 area 0.069 hectare after taking out the area from plot No. 298/2 and 300. Against the order passed by Consolidation Officer dtd. 28/9/2022, chak appeal was filed by respondent Nos. 10, 11 and 12, which was decided by Settlement Officer Consolidation vide order dtd. 26/5/2023, allowing the appeal filed by respondent Nos. 10, 11 and 12, by which petitioner and contesting respondents were adjusted on plot Nos. 298 and 299 according to their share in their original holdings. Against appellate order dtd. 26/5/2023, revision under Sec. 48 of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as U.P.C.H. Act) was filed by respondent No. 5, which has been allowed under the impugned Order dtd. 20/11/2023, adjusting petitioner, respondent No. 5 and respondent No. 7 on Plot Nos. 299-M, 300-M 298/1M and 298/2-M, hence this Writ Petition on behalf of petitioner challenging the impugned revisional order dtd. 20/11/2023.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that petitioner is original tenure holder of Plot No. 298, as such claim was set up before Consolidation authorities that petitioner should be allotted chak on Plot No. 299, which is adjecent to his original holding in order to make his chak rectangular to the roadside. He submitted that in chak appeal and revision filed by contesting respondent, the chak of the petitioner had been disturbed, as such, the order passed by Deputy Director of Consolidation and Settlement Officer of Consolidation be set aside and stage of Consolidation Officer be maintained.