SHIV PRASAD Vs. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF CONSOLIDATION BULANDSHAHR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) S. P. Srivastava, J. This petition was listed for admission on the last occasion. The matter was heard by me. The learned counsel for the parties agree that as the parties have exchanged counter and rejoinder affidavits this petition can be dis posed of on merit instead of giving a formal admission to the writ petition. I have seen the documents and the judgment. In my opinion also, with the consent of learned counsel for the parties, this petition can be disposed of finally without formally admit ting it. I, therefore, heard learned counsel for the parties on merit and the writ petition is being disposed of finally even at the ad mission stage.

(2.) THE brief facts of the case are that during the course of consolidation proceed ing at the stage of carvation of chak plot No. 106 was earmarked for Khalihan. Respon dent No. 3 Jayanti Prasad filed an objection before the Consolidation Officer to the ef fect that he has been allotted three chaks and one of the chaks may be formed on plot No. 106. THE Consolidation officer allowed this objection and made changes in the proposal and allotted plot No. 106 in the chak of the contesting respondents. Num ber of appeal were filed against the judg ment of the Consolidation Officer. THE petitioner also preferred an appeal against this judgment. All those appeals were dis posed of by an order dated 17-11-83 by the appellate authority (Settlement Officer of Consolidation ). THE appeals were allowed and the order of the Consolidation Officer was set aside, Plot No. 106 was ordered to be maintained as Khalihan after excluding it from the chak No. 81. Aggrieved by the order of the SOC, dated 17-11-83, Jayanti Prasad contesting respondent filed a revision before the Dy. Director of Con solidation. That revision was numbered as 140-Jayanti Prasad v. Shiv Prasad. This revision was dismissed by the D. D. C. on 8-3-84. THE finding which was recorded by the D. D. C. in this revision was that plot No. 106 which was held as Khalihan at the stage of consolidation (sic) and was given in the chak of respondent No. 3 was not proper, therefore, it will be separated from that chak. It is admitted fact that no writ petition was filed against that order. As such the order, in my opinion, became final on the subject i. e. so far as declaration of plot No. 106 as Khalihan, and its exclusion from the chak No. 81 is concerned. It appears that two more revisions were filed i. e. Revision Nos. 1094 and 1095 under Section 48 of the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act. THE first revision was filed by Jayanti Prasad respondent No. 3 whereas the second revision was filed by the Pradhan of Gaon Samaj against Jayanti Prasad. THEse two revisions were disposed of by the D. D. C. on 26- 4-85. This is the order which is under challenge in the present writ petition.

(3.) THE Gaon Sabha also filed a counter-affidavit sworn by one Sri Amin Chandra (Ex. Pradhan ). In para 5 of the affidavit it has been stated that the state ment of Pradhan (sic) under Section 8-A of the Act were proposed by the village people and the consolidation committee to ear mark land for public purposes it was con sidered that as the plot No. 106 was not fit for Khalihan as it was away from the village, and further that the AC. O. without con sidering the view of the consolidation com mittee with some ulterior motive got this plot allotted for the purposes of Khalihan. An objection was filed by the members of the Land Management Committee. It is fur ther stated that Jayanti Prasad filed a revision before the D. p. C. and an order was passed by the D. D. C. on 8-3-84 without summoning the consolidation committee concerned and without giving any oppor tunity of hearing to the consolidation com mittee, therefore, that order was not proper and further with a view to protect the inter est of the village a second revision was filed in which the impugned order was passed. In this way the Gaon Sabha supported the im pugned order. Rejoinder-affidavit has also been filed reiterating the facts stated in the writ petition.