SAGIR AHMAD Vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. Srikrishna Mishra assised by Mr. Mohd Mohiuddin Siddiqui, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Tawvab Ahmed Khan, learned counsel for contesting respondent Nos. 4 and 5 and learned Standing Counsel for the State respondents.

(2.) Brief facts of the case are that petitioner and respondent No. 3 are real brother. Respondent Nos. 4 and 5 are the nephew of the petitioner. Petitioner is chak holder No. 1564 and original holdings of the petitioner are plot Nos. 619, 637, 606M, 652 and 589M, total area 0.594 hectare. Petitioner was proposed single chak on plot Nos. 652 and 653M, total area 0.594 hectare. Respondent No. 3 is chak holder No. 1676 and original holdings of the respondent No. 3 are plot Nos. 629, 637, 606M, 652, 589M and 606 total area 0.490 hectare. Respondent No. 3 was proposed single chak on plot Nos. 638 and 637 total area 0.514 hectare. Father of respondent Nos. 4 and 5 namely Jameer Ahamad was chak holder No. 462 and original holdings of Jameer Ahamad are plot Nos. 619, 637, 606, 652 and 589, total area 0.403 hectare. Jameer Ahamad was proposed single chak on plot No. 619 area 0.369 hectare. Petitioner filed a chak objection under Sec. 21 (1) of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 hereinafter referred to as U.P.C.H. Act before Consolidation Officer for allotment of chak on plot No. 619 in place of plot Nos. 652 and 653, the aforementioned objection was registered as case No. 91 Sagir Ahamad v. State, Consolidation Officer vide order dtd. 10/3/2017 allowed the objection filed by petitioner allotting him chak on plot No. 619 in place of plot Nos. 652 and 653, the aforementioned objection was registered as case No. 91 Sagir Ahamad v. State. Consolidation Officer vide order dtd. 10/3/2017 allowed the objection filed by petitioner allotting him chak on plot No. 619 in place of plot Nos. 652 and 653. Respondent Nos. 4 and 5 challenged the order dtd. 10/3/2017 in appeal under Sec. 21 (2) of U.P.C.H. Act before Settlement Officer Consolidation with the prayer that should be allotted chak on plot No. 619 as the plot No. 619 is roadside plot of both parties. The aforementioned appeals was heard and allowed by Settlement Officer Consolidation vide order dtd. 23/5/2017 allotting chak to respondent Nos. 4 and 5 on plot No. 619 area 0.264. Petitioner challenged the appellate order dtd. 23/5/2017 through revision under Sec. 48 of U.P.C.H. Act before Deputy Director of Consolidation. Respondent No. 4 also filed revision under Sec. 48 of U.P.C.H. Act praying for single chak on plot No. 619. The aforementioned revisions was heard together and vide order dtd. 24/3/2018 the revision filed by petitioner was fully allowed and revision filed by respondent No. 4 was allowed in part. Respondent Nos. 4 and 5 filed a restoration application dtd. 28/3/2018 as well as Hasrat Ali filed a restoration application dtd. 5/4/2018 against the order dtd. 24/3/2018 which have been rejected vide order dtd. 24/5/2018 by Deputy Director of Consolidation. Respondent Nos. 4 and 5 filed a WritB No. 4576 of 2018 and respondent No. 3 filed a writB No. 4583 of 2018 against the orders dtd. 24/3/2018 and 24/5/2018 which were heard and allowed by this Court by separate orders dtd. 25/7/2023 setting aside the orders dtd. 24/3/2018 and 24/5/2018 and remanded the matter back before Deputy Director of Consolidation to decide the revision afresh within period of six months. In pursuance of the order of this Court dtd. 25/7/2023, Deputy Director of Consolidation vide order dtd. 18/3/2024 dismissed the revision filed by petitioner and revision filed by respondent No. 4 was dismissed as not pressed resulting into maintaining the Settlement Officer Consolidation stage. Hence this writ petition for the following reliefs :

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that petitioner is in possession of the plot No. 619 prior to notification of the consolidation operation in the Village. He further submitted that petitioner's source of irrigation is situated in plot No. 619, as such, petitioner is entitled for single chak on plot No. 619. He further submitted that respondent No. 3 has been allotted chak on plot No. 637 which is also roadside plot, as such, impugned order passed by revisional Court is wholly illegal. He further submitted that plot No. 619 is original holding of the petitioner and petitioner is small tenure holder, as such, petitioner cannot be deprived from plot No. 619. He further submitted that impugned revisional order has been passed without considering the provision contained under Sec. 19 of U.P.C.H. Act, as such, impugned order is liable to be set aside and petitioner is entitled for allotment of single chak on his original plot No. 619.