DEOKI DEVI Vs. DDC AGRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) S. U. Khan, J. In this writ petition after hearing learned Counsel for the parties in part, I passed the following order on 5-5-2005. "the main dispute in between the par ties in this writ petition is in respect of plot No. 212/2. The said plot appears to be situated near the road hence having good market value. It further appears that before start of the consolidation the said plot belonged to respondent No. 2 However, at the A. C. O. /c. O. stage the said plot was given to Gaon Sabha as Bachat land. S. O. C. gave this Bachat land to the petitioner. It is evident from the Talika prepared in pursuance of the order of the S. O. C, which is at page 16 that an area of 17 acres of plot No. 212/2 was given to petitioner Deoki which in turn was taken from Bachat land. The argument of learned Counsel for the petitioner is that when respondent No. 2 did not challenge the order through which his plot No. 212/2 was included in Bachat land then he cannot ob ject to the readjustment of part of the said plot in such mariner that it is taken out of Bachat land and given to the petitioner. Learned Counsel for respondent No. 2 wants some time to verify as to whether any objection at any stage except through revision before D. D. C. was raised by the respondent No 2 against inclusion of prime plot No. 212/2 in Bachat land: Learned Counsel for petitioner has also pointed out towards judgment of the S. O. C. dated 1-9-1882 Annexure 6 in this regard par ticularly the portion on page 24 of the paper book. Accordingly list in the first week of August 2005 for further arguments which shall be confined to the above aspect only. "

(2.) THE order of S. O. C. , Mathura through which an area of 17 acres from plot No. 212/2 was given to the petitioner is dated 27-8 1981, copy of which is Annexure 1 to the writ petition. THE said judgment was passed in Ap peal No. 75 Sans; Ballabh Goswami v. Deoki &' Ore. Mahanta Lalita Saran, rsspondent No. 2 in this writ petition (the only contesting respondent) filed an application for recall of the said order of S. O. C. dated 27-8- 1981 on the ground that he was not heard before passing the said order. Said application was rejected on 1-9-1982. Respondent No. 2 also filed revision under Section 48 U. P. C. H. Act against judgment and order passed by the S. O. C. dated 27-8-1981. THE said revision (Revision No. 253/338) was allowed by D. D. C. Agra on 13- 12 1983. THE said order is under challenge in this writ petition.

(3.) THERE is one more aspect of the matter. After allotment of plot No. 212/2 area 17 acres to petitioner, petitioner ap plied before S. O. C. for permission to make construction of boundary wall over the said plot. S. O. C. granted the permis sion through his order dated 9-7-1982. THEREafter boundary wall and a room were constructed by the petitioner and thereafter it was gifted to Akhil Bhartiyasri Krishna Chetna Mandal Society (Paras 12 and 13 of the writ petition ).