BUDDHU Vs. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF CONSOLIDATION (ADMINISTRATION)

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri Mohd. Abid Ali, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Prashant Singh 'Atal', learned counsel representing the respondent No.2.

(2.) The Assistant Consolidation Officer had proposed two chaks to the respondent No. One chak proposed by the Assistant Consolidation Officer comprised of Gata No.3029 and Gata No. 3034 whereas second chak comprised of Gata No. 3048. The original holding of respondent No.2-Ram Dhani comprised of Gata No. 3168 and Gata No. 3029. Against the proposed allotment of two chaks, respondent No.2 filed objection before the Consolidation Officer, who allowed the same by passing the order dated 29.10.2001. Perusal of the said order dated 29.10.2001, passed by the Consolidation Officer, Kadipur, Sultanpur reveals that respondent No.2 wanted both his chaks on his original holding i.e. Gata No. 3029/ The Consolidation Officer accordingly acceded to the demand of respondent No.2 and allowed his objection by passing the order dated 29.10.2001. As per amendment chart annexed with the said order dated 29.10.2001, respondent No.2 was, thus, allotted a single chak in place of two chaks as proposed to him by the Assistant Consolidation Officer and thus, a solitary chak was allotted by the Consolidation Officer to the respondent No.2 comprising of Gata No. 3029M and Gata No. 3034M. Admittedly some portion of Gata No. 3029 was the original holding of respondent No.2 and in terms of the demand raised before the Consolidation Officer, his two chaks as proposed by the Assistant Consolidation Officer were abolished and in their place he was allotted a single chak comprising of his original holding i.e. Gata No. 3029.

(3.) It appears that being satisfied with the order passed by the Consolidation Officer, respondent No.2 did not raise any objection against the order passed by the Consolidation Officer for a substantial period, however, he filed an appeal under Sec. 21(2) of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act before the Settlement Officer Consolidation on 05.08.2003 against the order passed by the Consolidation Officer dated 29.10.2001. The memorandum of appeal preferred by the respondent No.2 is on record wherein he stated that his house is situated on Gata No. 3165 and adjoining the said house situates Gata No. 3168 which is his original holding and as such Settlement Officer Consolidation ought to have proposed or allotted a chak to the petitioner near his house comprising of Gata No. 3168. The Settlement Officer Consolidation considered the aforesaid plea of respondent No.2 and dismissed the appeal by passing the order dated 06.08.2004 wherein a finding has been given that respondent No.2 was allotted only one chak which comprised of largest original holding of respondent No.2, namely, Gata No. 3029. In respect of Gata No. 3165, it was also noticed by the Settlement Officer, Consolidation that said Gata is not the original holding of respondent No.2; rather it is the original holding of chak holder No. 327. The Settlement Officer, Consolidation has, thus, dismissed the appeal primarily on the ground that Gata No.3165 is not the original holding of respondent No.2; rather it is the original holding of chak holder No. 327 and accordingly, chak holder No. 327 has rightly been allocated a chak comprising of Gata No. 3165.