RAMJEET Vs. D.D.C.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondent. Notice upon third respondent is deemed sufficient in view of office report dated 19.04.2017.

(2.) By means of the instant petition, petitioner is assailing the order dated 12 October 1992 and order dated 21 March 1991 passed by the first respondent, Deputy Director of Consolidation, Varanasi and that of the second respondent, Assistant Settlement Officer, Consolidation, Varanasi, respectively, whereby, the carvation of chak of the petitioner has been modified in proceedings under Section 21 of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953, relating to Village Mustafabad, Pargana Jalhupur, District Varanasi.

(3.) Petitioner is chak holder no. 629 and the third respondent is of no. 617. Petitioner is tenure holder of only 0.29? acre and it is noted in the impugned order that the petitioner has residential house adjacent to his original plot no. 25, therefore, was allotted chak in front of his residential house including some portion of his original holding which is reflected from the extract of C.H. 23 Part-I. The third respondent being dissatisfied filed appeal which was allowed. Aggrieved, petitioner preferred a revision which was dismissed. The second respondent modified the chak of the petitioner on the reasoning that it was necessary to allot a chak to the contesting respondent near his abadi, but no reason was assigned as to why a small tenure holder viz. the petitioner should be displaced from his chak allotted at his original holding adjacent to his residential house. The revisional authority noted in the impugned order that spot inspection was carried out, but it is sought to be urged that no spot inspection memo was prepared nor any opportunity of hearing was given before displacing the petitioner from his original chak adjacent to his house.