SURESH Vs. ADDL. DISTRICT MAGISTRATE (L/R)/DDC

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri Prashant Kumar Tripathi, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri Ashok Kumar, learned counsel for the private respondent Nos. 2 and 3 and Sri B.N. Pathak, learned standing counsel for the state-respondents.

(2.) Brief facts of the case are that petitioners are chak holder No. 18. Original holding of the petitioners are plot Nos. 105, 105/1, 105/2, 105/3, 105/4 and 105/5. Petitioners were pro-posed single chak on plot No. 105M, area 0.0253 hect, plot No. 105, area 0.8475 hect, plot No. 102M, area 0.0123 hect., plot No. 101M, area 0.0202 hect, total 4 plots, area 0.9169 hect. Respon-dent Nos. 2 and 3 are chak holder No. 161. Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 were proposed two chaks, first on plot No. 105M, area 0.0916 hect and second chak on plot No. 62M, 64M, 100M, 101M, total area 1.6844 hect. Respondent No. 4 is chak holder No. 128 and respondent No. 4 was pro-posed single chak on plot No. 102M, 101M, 99M. Respondent Nos. 5, 6, 7 and 8 are chak holder No. 226 who were proposed three chaks, first chak on plot No. 101M, 102M, 100M, 99M. Second chak on plot Nos. 108M and 109M, 111/4, 111/3 and third chak on plot Nos. 96, 97, 98. Petitioners filed chak objection under Sec. 20(2) of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as the "U.P. C.H. Act"), praying for allotment of chak on plot No. 105/3 as their house and pumping set are stated to be situated over the same. Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 have also filed chak objections with the prayer that the L.A.B. chak be allotted to them. The Consolidation Officer vide order dtd. 18/6/1994, rejected the objections filed by the petitioners. Against the order dtd. 18/6/1994, petitioners filed an appeal before the Settlement Officer of Consolidation. The Settlement Officer of Consolidation allowed the appeal by order dtd. 20/5/1996, whereby the chak allotted to Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 on Plot No. 105 was cancelled and the petitioners were adjusted over the same. Against the appellate order dtd. 20/5/1996, two revisions were filed before the Deputy Di-rector of Consolidation one by Respondent Nos. 2 and 3, and another by Respondent Nos. 5 to 7. The Deputy Director of Consolidation, by order dtd. 31/3/1997, dismissed both revisions for non-prosecution. Against the order dtd. 31/3/1997, the private respondents filed a restoration application, which was allowed by order dtd. 3/4/1997. Deputy Director of Consolidation passed an order dtd. 3/4/1997 allowing the aforementioned revisions. The petitioners then filed a recall appli-cation on the ground that the order dtd. 3/4/1997 had been passed ex parte. The Deputy Director of Consoli-dation rejected the recall application by order dtd. 26/4/1997. Consequently, Writ Petition No. 18130 of 1997 was filed before this Court, which was allowed by order dtd. 8/11/2006 setting aside the order dtd. 26/4/1997 and the matter was remitted back to the Revisional Court to decide the revisions afresh on merits. In compliance of the order of this Court dtd. 8/11/2006, the revisions filed by the private respondents were allowed by order dtd. 10/9/2014. Hence, the present writ petition for the following relief :

(3.) This Court entertained the pre-sent writ petition on 17/11/2014 and stayed the operation of the impugned order dtd. 10/9/2014. Pursuant to the said order, the parties have exchanged their pleadings.