RAMPAL Vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. Prathamesh Upadhyay, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Mridul Kumar, learned Standing Counsel for the State respondents and Mr. A.P. Singh, learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 3. With the consent of the parties, the writ petition is being heard and disposed of finally without inviting counter affidavit.

(2.) Facts of the case in brief are that petitioner is chak holder No. 184 and original holdings of the petitioners are 163/2, 284/499 having 1/10 share (0.0034 hectare) and plot No. 335M having 1/10 share (0.018 hectare) Total area 0.052 hectare. Assistant Consolidation Officer has proposed two chak to petitioner. First chak on Plot No. 148M area 0.016 hectare, plot No. 149M area 0.006 hectare and Second chak on plot No. 284/469M area 0.003 hectare, plot No. 285M area 0.010 hectare total area of both the chak is 035 hectare. Respondent No. 3 is Chak holder No. 159 and original holding of the respondent No. 3 are 148 area 0.032 hectare having 1/4 share (0.008 hectare) along with plot Nos. 158, 159 and several other plots as mentioned C.H. Form and 23 part 1 of respondent No. 3. Assistant Consolidation Officer has proposed two chaks to respondent No. 3, first chak on plot No. 159M area 0.019 hectare and second chak on plot No. 284/469M area 0.025 hectare, plot No. 285M area 0.060 hectare total area of both the chak is 0.085 hectare. Against the proposal of Assistant Consolidation Officer, Chak objections were filed un- der Sec. 20 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act by petitioner, respondent No. 3 as well as other tenure holders for their respective claims. The Consolidation Officer consolidated all the objections and decided the same vide order dtd. 1/11/2022. Respondent No. 3 challenged the order dtd. 1/11/2022 passed by Consolidation Officer in appeal under Sec. 21(2) of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act before settlement officer of Consolidation with prayer to allot remaining area of road side plot No. 148 after excluding the same from the chak of petitioners. The Settlement Officer Consolidation vide order dtd. 13/4/2023 dismissed the appeal filed by respondent No. 3. Against the appellate order dtd. 13/4/2023, respondent No. 3 filed a revision under Sec. 48 of U.P.C.H. Act before respondent No. 2/ Deputy Director of Consolidation which was allowed under order dtd. 30/10/2023 taking out the entire area allotted to petitioner on plot Nos. 148 and 149 and in lieu thereof, petitioner has been allotted plot Nos. 270M, 271M, 273M. Against the revisional order dtd. 30/9/2023 passed by Deputy Director of Consolidation, petitioner filed a Writ B No. 362 of 2024 before this Court which was allowed in part vide order dtd. 12/3/2024 and matter was sent back before respondent No. 2/Deputy Director of Consolidation to decide the revision afresh within a period of three months. In compliance of the order of this court dtd. 12/3/2024 Deputy Director of Consolidation has heard the revison afresh and vide order dtd. 3/6/2024 allowed the chak revison filed by respondent No. 3 allotting plot No. 148 M in the chak of respondent No. 3 taking out the area from the chak of petitioner (Ram pal) as well as from the chak holder No. 276 (Shiv Bali). Against the revisional order dtd. 3/6/2024, a recall application dtd. 7/10/2024 was filed on behalf of petitioner which has been dismissed has not maintainable vide order dtd. 21/1/2025 hence this writ petition filed for the following relief :

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in compliance of the earlier order of this Court dtd. 12/3/2024 chak revision filed by respondent No. 3 has been decided in arbitrary manner. He submitted that plot No. 148 is road side plot of respondent No. 3 as well as one Jhinkan. He further submitted that Jhinkan was agreed for allotment of his share in roadside plot No. 148 to petitioner, but Deputy Director of Consolidation has failed to appreciate the aforementioned aspect of the matter and has allotted the excess area of road side plot No. 148 to respondent No. 3. He submitted that respondent No. 3 cannot be allotted excess area in road side plot No. 148. He submitted that impugned revisional order should be set aside and order of Settlement officer of consolidation should be maintained.