RAM DEO Vs. DY DIRECTOR OF CONSOLIDATION BASTI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) -Heard Sri Tripathi B. G. Bhai, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Satyendra Narain Singh appearing for contesting respondents.

(2.) FACTS, giving rise to the present dispute, are as under : Petitioners, who claim themselves to be landless agricultural labourers, are said to have been allotted one bigha land each for construction of residential houses out of plot No. 352 by the Land Management Committee/Gaon Sabha on 30.12.1987. It has been alleged that after the allotment made in their favour, they had initially constructed Kuchcha houses and have subsequently made it pucca and are residing therein. During Partal made at the time of consolidation operation, Assistant Consolidation Officer, on inspection, found abadi existing and submitted a report in this regard. Based on the said report, Consolidation Officer passed an order dated 24.2.1993 directing the land in dispute to be recorded as abadi in Class '6'. The same becomes apparent from perusal of C.H. Form No. 2A as well as copy of Khatauni 1392F. to 1397 F. filed as Annexure-4 to the writ petition. It appears that subsequently respondent No. 2 moved a time barred objection which was registered as Case No. 8576 on the ground that the land has wrongly been recorded as abadi in Class '6' as there exists no abadi on spot and the said plot be valued. Consolidation Officer vide order dated 15.9.1993 allowed the same. It is clear from the order of the Consolidation Officer filed as Annexure-5 to the writ petition that neither any spot inspection was carried out by him nor any notices were issued. Petitioners having come to know of the said order filed an appeal. Settlement Officer Consolidation summoned the record of Case No. 8576. Record-Keeper submitted a report that there is no entry of Case No. 8576 in the 'goswara'. Settlement Officer, Consolidation finding that the land in dispute has been allotted by the Land Management Committee to the petitioners and there was no justification to value the land, which was in the shape of an abadi and allotted to the petitioners, set aside the order of Consolidation Officer. Contesting respondent No. 2 challenged the appellate order by filing revision. Revisional court vide order dated 17.7.2000 allowed the revision and set aside the order of the Settlement Officer, Consolidation dated 30.12.1999 as well as the order dated 24.2.2003 passed by the Consolidation Officer directing the land to be recorded as abadi in Class '6' and maintained the order dated 15.9.1993 passed by the Consolidation Officer fixing the valuation of the land.

(3.) I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.