RAKESH Vs. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF CONSOLIDATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Supplementary affidavit filed today, is taken on record.

(2.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioners; learned Standing Counsel for the respondents 1, 2 and 3; and Sri S.K. Tyagi for the respondents 4 to 8.

(3.) It appears that in consolidation proceedings, under Section 9-A(2) of U.P. C.H. Act, the parties had entered into a compromise pursuant to which, in terms of the compromise dated 26.01980, the Consolidation Officer passed an order on the same date. The order could not be implemented therefore proceeding was drawn under Rule 109-A of the U.P. C.H. Rules for implementation of the order. The Consolidation Officer, in proceeding under Rule 109-A, passed an order on 17.11.2014 thereby preparing a table to give effect to the compromise order dated 26.01980. It appears that there was some error in the table, therefore, an appeal was preferred against the order dated 17.11.2014 by the petitioners. Before the appellate authority, apart from the claim that the chak alteration table was not properly prepared in terms of the compromise, one of the grounds taken was that plot No. 211, which came to the petitioners in terms of the compromise, was not provided. The Settlement Officer of Consolidation by slightly altering the table prepared by the Consolidation Officer directed implementation of the order dated 26.01980 in terms of the compromise. In respect of the plea of the petitioners as regards plot No. 211, it was observed that plot No. 211 was recorded in the Khata of one Amar Singh son of Bhagwan Sahai as per C.H. Form 45 and since he was not privy to the compromise therefore the said plot cannot be included in the Kura of the petitioners.