UMESH KUMAR Vs. DEPUTY DIRECTOR CONSOLIDATION MUZAFFAR NAGAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY means of this writ petition, the petitioners have canvassed the legality of the impugned orders dated 27.9.2005, and 3.7.2004 passed by Deputy Director Consolidation. It would appear that by order -dated 3.7.2004, the Deputy Director Consolidation directed to enter the plots namely plot nos. 1955, 2433,2435, 2436 and 2437 in the revenue record in terms of settlement: area. The restoration application preferred against the said order came to be dismissed by a subsequent order dated 27.9.2005 on the premises that the impugned order was made on merits.

(2.) IT would transpire from the record that the dispute revolves round plot Nos. 1955, 2433/1, 2433/2, 2435, 2436/1, 2436/2 and 2437, It would further transpire that the area of these plots in the basic year as well as in the Settlement year was as under: Plot Nos. Area recorded in Area at present basic year 1955 10 Biswa 10 Dhur 1955 16 Biswa 10 Dhur 24 33 2 Bigha 2433/1 2 Bigha, 3 Biswa 2433/2 4 Biswa 2435 1 Bigha 14 Biswa 2435 1 Bigha 18 Biswa 2436 2 Bigha 17 Biswa 2436/1 3 Bigha 2436/2 4 Biswa 2437 3 Bigha 16 Biswa 2437 4 Bigha The record further shows that pursuant to measurement undertaken of these plots by the consolidation staff, the area of plots was increased in terms of above details. It would further appear from the record that an appeal was preferred by contesting Opp. parties which was registered as Appeal no. 1731/1992 by which the contesting Opp. parties prayed for correction of plots in question according to settlement records. It is also eloquent from a perusal of paragraphs 2 and 3 of the affidavit that the chaks of petitioners and contesting respondents adjoin each other. The substance of what has been stated therein is that area was increased but actual measurement: was not done and further that now the authorities seem prepared to make measurement which according to the case of the Opp. party would affect the position of their chaks and therefore, it is prayed the plots may be recorded according to the area recorded in the settlement year. The appeal came to be dismissed by the appellate authority on the ground of delay and it was held that sufficient cause was not shown for condonation of delay. Revision preferred against the said order was allowed attended with direction to correct the area of the plots regard being had to the area recorded inthe settlement records.

(3.) I have heard learned Counsel for the petitioners as well as learned Standing Counsel.