AJAY KUMAR SINGHAL Vs. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF CONSOLIDATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. Brajesh Shukla, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Tarun Gaur, learned standing counsel for the state-respondents and Mr. Vijay Kumar Rai, learned counsel for respondent nos. 4 and 5.

(2.) Brief facts of the case are that Village Girdawa Shahanpur, Pargana and Tehsil Nazibabad, District Bijnor was notified under Sec. 4 of the Uttar Pradesh Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as the 'U.P. C.H. Act') on 16/8/1992. The petitioner is chak holder no.63 and original holding of the petitioner is 95/1, etc. (total area .388 hect.). The petitioner was proposed chak on plot no. 258, area .293 hect. Respondent nos. 4 and 5 are chak holder no.466. The original holding of respondent nos. 4 and 5 are plot no.258, etc., area 3.688 hect. Respondent nos. 4 and 5 were allotted single chak on plot no.258, etc., area 3.650 etc. A time-barred objection under Sec. 9-A(2) of the U.P. C.H. Act was filed by respondent nos. 4 and 5 for declaring the plot no.258 as chak out. Consolidation Officer vide order dtd. 28/5/2010 excluded the plot no.258, area 3.650 hect. from consolidation scheme. Against the order dtd. 28/5/2010 passed by the Consolidation Officer, petitioner filed an appeal under Sec. 11(1) of the U.P. C.H. Act before the Settlement Officer of Consolidation which was registered as Appeal No.522 of 2010-11. The aforementioned appeal was heard and allowed by the Settlement Officer of Consolidation vide order dtd. 15/12/2010. The delivery of possession of the village in question including the chak of the petitioner, was taken place on 25/5/2011. Respondent nos. 4 and 5 filed a time-barred restoration application to recall the order dtd. 15/12/2010 which was rejected by the Settlement Officer of Consolidation vide order dtd. 23/1/2015. Respondent nos. 4 and 5 challenged the order dtd. 15/12/2010 by way of revision under Sec. 48 of the U.P. C.H. Act before the Deputy Director of Consolidation. The aforementioned revision was heard and dismissed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation vide order dtd. 18/6/2015. Respondent nos. 4 and 5 filed a Writ Petition No.42518 of 2015 before this Court which was dismissed vide order dtd. 31/7/2015. Respondent nos. 4 and 5 filed two time-barred objection under Sec. 21(1) of the U.P. C.H. Act. The Consolidation Officer vide order dtd. 25/3/2015 allowed the objection and area .100 hect. was excluded from consolidation scheme, affecting the chak of the petitioner, without condoning the long delay in filing the chak objection. Petitioner filed a restoration application before the Consolidation Officer against the order dtd. 25/3/2015 which was rejected vide order dtd. 13/4/2015. Against the orders dtd. 13/4/2015 and 25/3/2015, petitioner filed an appeal under Sec. 21(2) of the U.P. C.H. Act before the Settlement Officer of Consolidation which was heard and dismissed vide order dtd. 8/6/2015. The revision under Sec. 48 of the U.P. C.H. Act filed by the petitioner against the orders passed by the Consolidation Officer and the Settlement Officer of Consolidation, was registered as Revision No.486 before the Deputy Director of Consolidation. The aforementioned revision was heard and allowed vide order dtd. 18/6/2015, setting aside the orders dtd. 8/6/2015, 25/3/2015, 13/4/2015. Respondent nos. 4 and 5 initiated time-barred proceeding under Sec. 9-A(2) of the U.P. C.H. Act for excluding the plot nos. 95/1 and 95/2 from consolidation scheme. The aforementioned proceeding/time-barred objection was dismissed by the Consolidation Officer vide order dtd. 1/10/2015. Respondent nos. 4 and 5 filed recall application to recall the order dtd. 18/6/2015 which was allowed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation vide order dtd. 29/8/2017, setting aside the order dtd. 18/6/2015 and restoring the revision on its original number. The petitioner filed Writ Petition No.53362/2017 before this Court against the order dtd. 29/8/2017 which was initially entertained but later on the writ petition was dismissed vide order dtd. 1/5/2018. The village in question was notified under Sec. 52 of the U.P. C.H. Act on 8/2/2018. The transfer application filed on behalf of the petitioner to transfer the proceeding of pending revision, was rejected by the Collector vide order dtd. 4/11/2020. The Deputy Director of Consolidation vide order dtd. 18/11/2020 dismissed the petitioners revision. Hence, this writ petition for the following relief:-

(3.) This Court vide order dtd. 18/12/2020, directed the counsel for respondent to file counter affidavit. In pursuance of the order of this court dtd. 18/12/2020, affidavits exchanged between the parties.