CHHOTKU Vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. Shree Prakash Giri and Mr. Rajesh Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Anil Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for respondent No. 7, Mr. Pankaj Kumar, learned standing counsel for the state-respondents and Mr. Azad Rai, learned counsel for the respondent-gaon sabha.

(2.) Brief facts of the case are that petitioner is chak holder No. 360 and plot Nos. 826/1 and 826/2, total area 1.1930 hect., are the original plots of the petitioner. Petitioner was proposed single chak on plot Nos. 825M, 826/1, 828M, 839/1M and 839, total area 1.2493 hect. Respondent No. 7/Raj Kishore is chak holder No. 1206 and plot Nos. 367, 386, 500, 501, 504/1, 504/3, 505/1,505/3, 523, 529, total area 1.4610 hect., having 1/3rd share; plot No. 524, area 0.3990 hect., having 1/3rd share and plot Nos. 527, 998/3M, 368M, 626, 827,1320 along with certain other plots are original plots of respondent Nos. 7. Respondent No. 7 was proposed three chaks by the Assistant Consolidation Officer, 1st chak on plot No. 998/3M, 1103/1M, 2nd chak on 826/1M 827M and 3rd chak on 364M, etc. Against the proposal of the Assistant Consolidation Officer, chak objection under Sec. 20(2) of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as the "U.P C.H. Act") were filed by the petitioner as well as respondent No. 7. The Consolidation Officer vide order dtd. 24/12/2020 partly allowed the Case No. 2 filed by respondent No. 7/Raj Kishore and dismissed the Case/ Objection No.238 filed by the petitioner Chhotku. Against the order of the Consolidation Officer dtd. 24/12/2020, petitioner as well as respondent No. 7 have filed chak appeal under Sec. 21(2) of the U.P.C.H. Act before the Settlement Officer of Consolidation which were registered as Case Nos. 192 and 213. The Settlement Officer of Consolidation heard the appeal and vide order dtd. 15/3/2021 has allowed the appeal filed by petitioner- Chhotku and rejected the claim of respondent No. 7/Raj Kishore. Against the appellate order dtd. 15/3/2021, respondent No. 7/Raj Kishore filed revision under Sec. 48 of the U.P. C.H. Act before the Deputy Director of Consolidation which was registered as Revision No. 518 and vide order dtd. 15/2/2023 allowed the revision. Hence, this writ petition for the following relief :

(3.) Counsel for the petitioner sub- mitted that the Assistant Consolidation Officer has not made the proposal in accordance with the provisions contained under Sec. 19 of the U.P. C.H. Act, accordingly, chak objection was filed by the petitioner which was not properly considered and decided by the Consolidation Officer. He submitted that chak appeal filed by the petitioner was rightly decided by the Settlement Officer of Consolidation, adjusting the petitioner as well as respondent No. 7 in accordance with the provisions of the U.P. C.H. Act but the revisional court has illegally interferred with the allotment of chak made by the appellate court in proper manner. He further submitted that under the impugned revisional order, petitioner has been deprived from his valuable trees, situated in the plot in question as well as the structure situated over the plot in question. He further submitted that under the impugned order, the petitioner has also been deprived from the facility of irrigation to irrigate his plot. He also submitted that the impugned revisional order dtd. 15/2/2023, passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation should be set aside and the order dtd. 15/3/2021 passed by the Settlement Officer of Consolidation be restored. He placed reliance upon the following judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court in support of his argument :