SUDAMA YADAV Vs. D.D.C.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Smt. Durga Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Santosh Kumar Dwivedi, learned counsel for private respondents and Mr. Tarun Gaur, learned Standing Counsel for the State.

(2.) Brief facts of the case are that in the basic year of consolidation operation plot Nos. 155, 166, 20, 21 of Khata No. 278 situated in village Jangal Lauthuha, Tappa Chaura Badgao, Pargana Sidhua Jobna, District Deoria Now Kushinagar was recorded in the name of predecessor of the petitioner as well as private respondent No. 4. Against the basic year entry of the plot in question, an objection under Sec. 9-A(2) of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act (hereinafter referred to 'U.P.C.H. Act') was filed by respondent No. 4- Madan on the ground that plot in question was self-acquisition of predecessor of respondent No. 4. Respondent No. 5- Lutawan has also filed a separate objection, under Sec. 9-A(2) of the U.P.C.H. Act for recording his name over the plot in question as co- tenure holders. The objection filed by respondent was registered as Case No. 930. Issues were framed before the Consolidation Officer and parties have adduced evidence in support of their cases. Consolidation Officer vide order dtd. 8/10/1997 decided the aforementioned objection in respect to the plot in question for recording the name of Respondent No. 4- Madan and for expunging the name of grandfather of the petitioner. The Consolidation Officer in the operative portion of this order has directed that 1/2 share of plot No. 155/166 shall be given to the petitioner- Sudama. Against the order dtd. 8/10/1997 passed by the Consolidation Officer, respondent No. 4 filed an appeal under Sec. 11 of U.P.C.H. Act before the Settlement Consolidation Officer. Two more appeals were filed, one appeal by Bhagat and another by Lutawan. The aforementioned appeals were registered as Appeal Nos. 641/689, 642/690, 643/691. The petitioner was impleaded as opposite party in the aforementioned appeals. The Settlement Officer of Consolidation allowed the appeal No. 641/689 filed by respondent No. 4/Madan and dismissed the Appeal No. 642/690 filed by Bhagat as well as Appeal No. 643/691 filed by Lutawan. By the order of the Appellate Court dtd. 21/12/2011, 1/2 share given to the petitioner in plot No. 155/166 has also been taken away. Against the appellate order dtd. 21/12/2011, the petitioner has filed revision, under Sec. 48(1) of U.P.C.H. Act, which was registered as Revision No. 510/762 and two more revisions- one by Kishore and others and another by Bhagat and others were filed before the Deputy Director of Consolidation. All the three revisions were clubbed together, and the Deputy Director of Consolidation, vide order dtd. 31/1/2017, dismissed the revisions. Hence this writ petition on behalf of petitioner/ Sudama Yadav for following relief:-

(3.) This Court entertained the matter on 5/5/2017, issued notice to the un- represented private respondents but no interim order was granted in the instant writ petition.