SUMITRA Vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. R.C. Singh, learned senior counsel assistant by Mr. Brijesh Shukla, learned counsel for petitioners, Mr Ayub Khan, learned counsel for respondent No. 5 and Mr. Ashish Chand Nishad, learned Standing Counsel for the state respondents.

(2.) Brief facts of the case are that father of petitioner No. 2-Sanu was chak holder No. 188 and petitioner No. 1 is vandee of legal heir of Sanu. Respondent No. 5-Ramveer is chak holder No. 1642. Plot Nos. 2192 and 2354 were original plot of Sanu but single chak was proposed to Sanu on plot Nos. 1989, 2061/1, 2066, 2067/1. A time barred proceeding under Sec. 9-A (2) of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (herein after referred to as U.P.C.H. Act) to keep the plot Nos. 2192 and 2354 outside the consolidation has been ultimately dismissed by this Court vide judgment dtd. 19/5/2025. The time barred chak allotment proceeding/ chak objection initiated by petitioners for allotment of chak on road side original plot Nos. 2192 and 2354 has been dismissed by consolidation officer vide order dtd. 29/11/2021. A time barred chak appeal filed by petitioners was dismissed by Settlement Officer of Consolidation vide order dtd. 27/4/2023. Chak revision filed by petitioners has been dismissed by Additional District Magistrate (F and R)/ Deputy Director of Consolidation vide order dtd. 16/5/2025. Hence this writ petition on behalf of petitioners for following relief :

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that plot Nos. 2192 and 2354 are original roadside plots of petitioners as such chak objection, chak appeal and chak revision filed by petitioners cannot be dismissed by consolidation authorities. He submitted that this Court has held from time to time that roadside plot should be kept outside the consolidation otherwise it should be allotted to original tenure holder, as such impugned orders cannot be sustained in the eye of law. He further submitted that proceeding under Sec. 9-A (2) of U.P.C.H. Act to put the plot Nos. 2192 and 2354 outside the consolidation has been decided, with observation that petitioners can press their chak allotment proceeding in accordance with law but impugned orders have been passed in illegal and arbitrary manner.