RAJENDRA SINGH TYAGI Vs. J.D.C.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. Om Prarkash Pandey, learned counsel assisted by Mr. Rajesh Tripathi, learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. Satyendra Kumar Singh as well as Mr. Anoop Bhaiya Lal Shukla, learned counsel for the private respondents and Mr. Ashutosh Kumar Rai, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State-respondents.

(2.) Brief facts of the case are that one Jamna Das father of the petitioners was chak holder No. 123 and Ram Das father of respondent No. 3 was chak holder number 363. Jamna Das had expired accordingly in his place petitioner Nos. 1 to 3 were substituted as his heirs and Ram Das had expired, accordingly, respondent No. 3 was substituted. Assistant Consolidation Officer proposed three chaks to Jamna Das including his original plot Nos. 309, 518, 217, 222 and 245. Against the proposal of Assistant Consolidation Officer an objection under Sec. 20 of U.P. Consolidation of Holding Act, 1953 (herein after referred to as the U.P.C.H. Act) was filed to the effect that exchange ratio of the certain plots proposed in his chak has been increased and some of the proposed plots are usar and their valuation has not been reduced as such the exchange ratio may be corrected. Father of the respondent No. 3 had also filed an objection to the effect that chak proposed to him does not include his original holding and plot proposed to be allotted are less fertile, as well as valuation of the plot have been increased, which has resulted into decreasing his area lesser then permissible limit. Consolidation Officer vide order dtd. 4/5/1977 disposed of chak objection field by tenure holder. Against the order of Consolidation Officer dtd. 4/5/1977, father of respondent No. 3 filed chak appeal before Settlement officer of Consolidation which was registered as Appeal No. 830. The aforementioned appeal was heard and allowed by Settlement Officer of Consolidation vide order dtd. 7/11/1978. Petitioner No. 2 filed a restoration application before Settlement Officer of Consolidation which was dismissed vide order dtd. 11/10/1979. Against the appellate order revision under Sec. 48 of U.P.C.H. Act was filed before Deputy Director of Consolidation. The aforementioned revision was heard and allowed vide order 1/12/1998 setting order dtd. 11/10/1979 rejecting the restoration application and remanded the matter before Settlement Officer of Consolidation to decide the appeal afresh on merit. In pursuance of remand order passed by the revisional court, Settlement Officer of Consolidation vide order dtd. 4/8/1981 allowed the appeal filed by father of respondent No. 3. Against appellate order dtd. 4/8/1981 petitioners filed a revision under Sec. 48 of U.P.C.H. Act before Deputy Director of Consolidation, which was registered as Revision No. 893. The aforementioned revision was heard and allowed in part vide order dtd. 12/3/82 and the case was remanded back to the Settlement Officer of Consolidation to decide the matter afresh. After remand order Assistant Settlement Officer of Consolidation has decided appeal vide order dtd. 13/10/86 allowing the appeal in part. Against appellate order dtd. 13/10/86 revision under Sec. 48 of U.P.C.H. Act was filed by petitioner which was registered as Revision No. 1765. Against the appellate order dtd. 13/10/86 father of respondent No. 3-Ram Das has also filed revision which was registered as Revision No. 1717. The aforesaid revisions were also heard together and vide dtd. 14/7/1988 revision filed by father of respondent No. 3 was allowed and revision filed by petitioners was dismissed. Hence this Writ Petition on behalf of the petitioners for the following Relief :

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that chak allotted by consolidation authorities to the petitioners are not in accordance with the provisions contained under Sec. 19 (1) (e) of the Act, as such the impugned order passed by consolidation authorities can-not be sustained in the eye of law. He further submitted that three chaks allotted to the petitioners by respondent Nos. 1 and 2 are at the distance of 2-3 km. as such same cannot be irrigated by the tube-well constructed by petitioners in their plot No. 222, which is violation of the provisions contained under Sec. 19 (1) (f) of U.P.C.H. Act. He further submitted that plot Nos. 1507, 1508, 1538 allotted by respondent No. 2 in the chak of petitioners were valued at the rate of 11-00 annas, 8.00 annas and 11.00 annas but respondent No. 1 has committed illegality in increasing the rate of valuation of these plots to 13.00 annas, 10.00 annas and 13.00 annas. He submitted that under the impugned orders shape of the petitioners' chak has been made irregular as such the impugned order cannot be sustained in the eye of law. He submitted that impugned orders should be set aside and stage of Consolidation Officer should be maintained.