AVDHESH KUMAR Vs. D.D.C.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. Shive Datta, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for respondent No. 6 and Mr. Om Anand, learned Standing Counsel for the State- respondents.

(2.) Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner is chak holder No. 3, petitioner's father is chak holder No. 196, respondent No. 2/ Mahesh Chandra is chak holder No. 159 and respondent No. 6/ Rubina is chak holder No. 239. Original plot of the petitioner-Avdhesh Kumar is plot No. 57 having area 5/27. Petitioner was proposed chak on plot No. 72/1M and 72/2M. Petitioner's father-Ram Prakash is original tenure holder of plot Nos. 72/1 and 72/2 and petitioner father was proposed chak on plot No. 40. Original plot of respondent No. 2/ Mahesh Chandra are 31, 70 and 94/3 and respondent No. 2 was proposed three chaks, first on plot No. 31M, second on 69M and third on 92M and 94/3. Against the proposal of Assistant Consolidation Officer, chak objections were filed. The chak of the petitioner as well as chak of respondent No. 6 were not affected by the order of Consolidation Officer as well as Settlement Officer of Consolidation. Against the appellate order, four revisions were filed under Sec. 48 of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as "U.P.C.H. Act"), which were registered as Revision Nos. 122 (Mahesh Chandra vs. Gram Samaj and Others), 124 (Munni Lal v. Gram Samaj and others), 125 (Itwari Lal v. Gram Samaj and others), 146 I(Darwari Lal v. Suresh Chandra). The aforementioned revisions were clubbed and heard together. Deputy Director of Consolidation/Additional District Magistrate (Finance and Revenue) Firozabad decided the aforementioned revisions vide order dtd. 26/10/2013 by which Revision Nos. 124 and 125 were dismissed and Revision No. 122 and 146 were al- lowed. By the revisional order, the chak of the petitioner has been disturbed by taking out the area of plot No. 72/1 and 72/2 from the chak of the petitioner and petitioner has been allotted chak on plot No. 94/37. By the aforementioned revisional order, the chak of respondent No. 6 was also affected taking out the area from plot Nos. 17/2, 197, 189, 331, 197 and allotting her chak on plot Nos. 72/1 and 72/2 etc., hence this writ petition for the following reliefs:

(3.) This Court entertained the matter on 14/3/2014 and stayed the operation of the revisional order dtd. 26/10/2013.