SITA RAM Vs. CONSOLIDATION COMMISSIONER AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Sri Rajesh Pandey, for the petitioner, and Sri Yashwant Singh, for the contesting respondents -5 to 7. The writ petition has been filed against order of Deputy Director of Consolidation dated 8.8.2013, allowing the recall application of the respondents and setting aside order dated 31.12.2005 and order dated 30.10.2014, dismissing the revision of the petitioner in chak allotment proceeding under U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as the Act).

(2.) THE dispute between the parties is for allotment of chak on plot 1085 of village Chilar, tahsil Saidpur, district Ghazipur. The land in dispute was original holdings of the petitioner and his brother Ram Raj (Chak -445) and, Kishun and Sarju (Chak -53) (now represented by respondents -5 to 7). Assistant Consolidation Officer proposed chak to the petitioner on plot 1085 in eastern side and Kishun and Sarju in western side. It is stated that initially, the petitioner did not file any objection, against his chak on plot 1085 rather he filed his objection for allotment of chak on plot 1077 and 1089 on the ground that he had his private source of irrigation on plot 1090. However Consolidation Officer did not accept the demand of the petitioner.

(3.) RESPONDENTS -5 to 7 filed an application for recall of the order dated 31.12.2005 on the ground that in the re vision, only Sarju (their father) was impleaded as opposite party and he was given notice. Respondents -5 to 7 were also co -sharers in the land in dispute but they were neither impleaded as parties nor any notice was issued to them as such the order was ex parte against them. Deputy Director of Consolidation, by order dated 8.8.2013 held that Chak -53 was carved out in the name of Ram Kishun and Sarju. After his death of Ram Kishun, the names of Kushhar, Ram Bachan and Ram Hari sons of Sarju were mutated over chak -53 by the order of Settlement Officer Consolidation dated 19.12.1997. But in the revision only Sarju alone was impleaded as opposite party as such respondents -5 to 7 were not given opportunity of hearing. On these findings, the recall application was allowed and order dated 31.12.2005 was set aside. Thereafter, the revision was heard on merit. Deputy Director of Consolidation, by order dated 30.10.2014 held that Ram Raj (Chak -445) was also co -sharer in the plot 1085 but he was not impleaded as party in the revision as such chak of the parties cannot be changed. He further found that the chaks of the parties are on their original holdings. On these findings the revision was dismissed. Hence this writ petition has been filed.