SHEO RAJ Vs. DY DIRECTOR OF CONSOLIDATION BALLIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BINOD Kumar Roy, J. The petitioners pray to quash the order dated, 20th October, 1981 passed by the Consolidation Officer-I, Ballia (Respondent No. 2) (as contained in Annexure-6) rejecting their objection preferred under section 9-A (2) of U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and the revisional order, dated 20th February, 1982 disposing of their Revision No. 63 (as contained in Annexure-8 ).

(2.) THE main thrust of the submission of Sri S. N. Srivastava, the learned counsel appearing in support of the Rule is that since the land in question, which measures 12 decimals of Plot No. 1987/2 appertaining to Khata No. 82, village Khajuri, Tahsil Sikandarpur East, district Ballia, stands recorded in the land revenue records as grove and accordingly in view of Section 3 (2) Explanation I of the Act could not be allotted in the chak of Respondents 3 and 4 and accordingly the impugned orders are liable to be quashed.

(3.) IT is true that the revisional authority has upheld the order of the Consolidation Officer rejecting the objection of the petitioner as 'being barred by limitation but it appears that while adjudicating the issue as to whether there was a grove in the agricultural year immediately preceding the year in which the notification under section 4 of the Act was issued was lost sight of. Much importance was attached to the facts stated by the Consolidation Officer in his local inspection. No finding has been recorded as to what was the nature of the land in the agricultural year immediately preceding the year in which notification under section 4 of the Act was issued.