ATAR SINGH Vs. DY. DIRECTOR OF CONSOLIDATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. P.K.S. Paliwal, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Pawan Kumar Srivastava, learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents and Mr. Sunil Kumar Singh, learned counsel for respondent No. 3-Gaon Sabha.

(2.) Brief facts of the case are that during consolidation operation an objection under Sec. 9-A(2) of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as the U.P.C.H. Act) was filed by petitioner for recording his name over plot No. 335 situated at village-Jarcha, Pargana and Tehsil-Dadari, Distict-Gautam Budh Nagar. The report was submitted in the proceeding and notices were issued to the Gram Pradhan of Gaon Sabha as well as State. Consolidation Officer after hearing the learned counsel for the parties vide final order dtd. 7/1/2003 directed to record plot No. 335 in the name of petitioner as bhumidhar with non-transferable right but no appeal or revision has been filed by Gaon Sabha or State under Sec. 11 or Sec. 48 of U.P.C.H. Act against the order dtd. 7/1/2003 passed by Consolidation Officer. Petitioner initiated proceeding under Rule 109-A of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Rules, 1954 (herein after referred to as U.P.C.H. Rules) and Consolidation Officer vide order dtd. 3/5/2003 issued parwana for recording the name of petitioner over plot No. 335 as bhumidhar with nontransferable right. Against the order dtd. 3/5/2003 appeal under Rule 109- A (3) of the U.P.C.H. Rules was filed by Gaon Sabha as well as State along with prayer for condonation of delay. Settlement Officer of Consolidation vide order dtd. 18/1/2006 granted benefit of Sec. 5 of Limitation Act, set aside the order dtd. 3/5/2003 passed in the proceeding under Rule 109-A of U.P.C.H. Rules as well as order dtd. 7/1/2003 passed under Sec. 9-A (2) of U.P.C.H. Act. Settlement Officer of Consolidation further directed to record the plot in question as "Usar" in the revenue record. Petitioner challenged the order dtd. 18/1/2006 in revision before Deputy Director of Consolidation which was dismissed vide order dtd. 29/12/2010 hence this writ petition filed for the following relief:

(3.) This Court entertained the matter on 9/2/2011 and granted interim protection to maintain the status quo with respect to the nature and possession of the plot in question. In pursuance of the order of this Court dated counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of State and petitioner has filed rejoinder affidavit.