MAYARAM Vs. STATE OF U.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. Sheetala Prasad Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Tarun Gaur, learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents.

(2.) Brief facts of the case are that belated chak objection was filed by petitioners with the prayer that chak allotted to respondent No. 2 be taken out and same may be reserved as Harijan Abadi. Consolidation Officer heard the chak objection filed by petitioners and vide order dtd. 9/1/1996 dismissed the aforementioned time barred chak objection for non-prosecution. Against the order dtd. 9/1/1996 chak appeal was filed by petitioners which was dismissed by Settlement Officer Consolidation vide order dtd. 10/2/2016. Against the order dtd. 10/2/2016 and 9/1/1996 petitioners filed a Chak Revision, which has also been dismissed vide order dtd. 7/8/2023 hence this wit petition on behalf of petitioners challenging the order dtd. 7/8/2023 passed by respondent No. 2, order dtd. 10/2/2016 passed by respondent No. 3 and order dtd. 9/1/1996 passed by respondent no. 4. One proceeding under Sec. 9-B (3) of U.P.C.H.Act was decided by the Settlement Officer Consolidation vide order dtd. 23/3/1994 and matter was remanded back before the Consolidation Officer to decide the matter for reservation of Harijan Abadi in accordance with law but there is nothing on record with respect to disposal of objection under Sec. 9-B of U.P.C.H. Act in pursuance of remand order dtd. 23/3/1994.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that chak objection along with prayer for condonation of delay was filed before denotification of village in question but chak objection, appeal and revision filed by petitioners have been dismissed on misconceived ground that village has been denotified under sec. 52 of U.P.C.H. Act. He further submitted that chak objection was filed in the year 1996 and village has been denotified under Sec. 52 of U.P.C.H. Act later on. He further submitted that chak objection is to be decided on merit so that the claim for Harijan Abadi may be adjudicated in accordance with law.