SOHAN LAL Vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Supplementary affidavit filed today on behalf of the petitioner, is taken on record.

(2.) Heard Mr. Ashok Kumar Dwivedi, learned counsel holding brief of Mr. Krishna Chandra Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Vidya Dhar Yadav, learned counsel for respondent No. 5, Mr. Azad Rai, learned counsel for Gaon Sabha and Mr. Ashish Chand Nishad, learned Standing Counsel for the Staterespondents.

(3.) Brief facts of the case are that petitioner is chak holder No. 339 and respondent No. 5 is chak holder Nos. 299. Assistant Consolidation Officer has proposed chak two chaks to the petitioner. First chak on plot No. 108M, 111M, 113M and second chak on plot Nos. 133M, 164M and 166M. Against the proposal of the Assistant Consolidation Officer, chak objection was filed by petitioner as well as respondent No. 5 and Consolidation Officer vide order dtd. 16/9/2019/ 17/3/2020 decided the chak objections Consolidation Officer vide order dtd. 16/9/2019 alloted chak to respondent No. 5 on plot Nos. 133 and 163 taking out the plot Nos. 191 and 192. Against the order of consolidation Officer dtd. 16/9/2019 chak appeal was filed by respondent No. 5 under Sec. 21 (2) of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as the U.P.C.H. Act) claiming the chak on plot No. 113 in lieu of plot Nos. 133 and 163. Settlement Officer of Consolidation vide order dtd. 22/3/2022 allowed the appeal and allotted plot No. 111M and 113M to the respondent No. 5 taking out the aforesaid area of the plot from chak of the petitioner accordingly, petitioner was adjusted on plot No. 133 and 163. Against the aforementioned appellate order dtd. 22/3/2022 chak revision was filed by petitioner which was allowed and matter was remitted back before the appellate court to decide the case afresh. In pursuance of the remand order passed by appellate court Settlement Officer Consolidation again heard the matter and vide order dtd. 23/1/2024, allowed the appeal of respondent No. 5 recording finding of fact that by making adjustment between the petitioner and respondent No. 5 petitioner shall not be affected as source of irrigation which is situated on plot No. 113 shall remain in the share of the petitioner. Against the appellate order dtd. 23/1/2024 petitioner filed revision under Sec. 48 of the U.P.C.H,. Act. The aforementioned revision was heard and dismissed vide order dtd. 21/3/2024, hence this writ petition following relief: