RAJA RAM Vs. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF CONSOLIDATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned Counsel for the parties.

(2.) THE dispute in the instant writ petition is regarding allotment of chak after completion of the consolidation proceedings. It is an admitted fact that there was partition between the ancestors of the petitioner and respondent No. 6 long before the commencement of the consolidation operation In the basic year, the respondent no 6 Doodh Nath was was recorded over several plots of Khata No, 30 including plot No. 212 -and Plot No 242M. whereas the petitioner and his brother Sita Ram stood recorded over several plots of Khata No. 115 including plot No. 212/1. The entire share of plot No. 242M was transferred by means of a sale deed by the petitioner to six different persons but the entire area of plot No. 212/1 having an area of 12 Bissau was retained by him. The plot No. 212/1 and plot No. 212/2 were two different plots which was situated adjacent to Jigra Hargarh Road, each having an area of 12 Bissau. When the consolidation authorities prepared a proposal at the stage of carving out chaks, the Assistant Settlement Officer Consolidation allotted the petitioner a chak on his original holding, plot No. 212/1. An area of 3 Bissau was taken away for the road but the entire chak of 9 Bissau was proposed at the stage of Assistant Settlement Officer Consolidation in favour of the petitioner. The respondent No. 6 Doodh Nath sold off part of 212/2 which was recorded in his name as his original holding, to respondent Nos. 4 and 5. The respondent No. 6 sold off an area of 4 Bissau of his share of plot No 212/2 to Basdeo where he has constructed his residential house adjacent to the road, 3 Bissau land to Smt. Balraji and Ram Narain. The remaining part of the plot No. 212/2 was left with Doodh Nath and a chak was carved out. After the aforesaid sale, the respondents filed their objections before the Consolidation Officer which was allowed vide order dated 14.8.1981 A copy of the said order is annexed as Annexure -1 to the writ petition. The order of the Consolidation Officer was challenged by the petitioner before the Settlement Officer Consolidation by filing an appeal, which was dismissed on 30.9.1981. The petitioner preferred a revision before the Deputy Director of Consolidation which stood dismissed vide order dated 27 12.1982. All the three orders are impugned in the instant writ petition.

(3.) COUNSEL for the contesting respondents has tried to support the orders of the consolidation authorities and emphatically stated that the findings arrived a! are concurrent finding of fact. The Consolidation Officer has made spot inspection and only then rejected the claim of the petitioner and in these circumstances, the orders should not be interfered whatsoever. In the counter affidavit, it is asserted on behalf of the contesting respondents that the petitioner had nothing to do with the plot No. 212/1, 212/2 and 212/3. Besides, it is submitted that the consolidation authorities have only made adjustment and tried to ensure that the subsequent vendees who had purchased the plot on the road side specifically for constructing the house are not deprived and, therefore, it does not call for any interference.