RAMZAN ALI Vs. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF CONSOLIDATION AZMAGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) S. P. Srivastava, J. Feeling aggrieved by the order passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation where under the revision filed under Section 48 of the U. P Consolida tion of Holdings Act by Abdul Jabbar and others by the present respondents, was al lowed and setting aside the orders passed by the Consolidation Officer and affirmed by the Assistant Settlement Officer (Con solidation) in appeal, the land in dispute was brought within the consolidation scheme, the petitioner has approached this Court seeking redress praying for the quashing of the revisional order.

(2.) I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have carefully perused the record.

(3.) IT appears that the land in dispute was inspected by the Consolidation Officer on 1-1-82 pursuant to the direction issued by the Deputy Director of Consolidation. In his report it was noticed by him that on the three sides of the land in dispute a boundary wall up to the height of 3 1/2 to 4' which was a permanent structure had already been built up but on the southern side it had not been joined permanently and there was a temporary wall of baked bricks. There was also a shed with a door and the foundation for a residential house had already been laid. IT was also found that a small room which was a permanently structure had also been raised. The Consolidation Officer found that there existed 31 trees of mango, two trees of guava, one tree of leechi, one tree of lemon, one tree of Shah toot which were of a height of about 3 1/2'. On visual observation the Consolidation Officer as sessed the age of the trees to be three years although they were claimed to be of five years. He, however, observed that since the matter regarding the exclusion of the land in dispute from the provisional consolidation scheme was under consideration, it was not proper to express any opinion. On the receipt of the aforesaid report the Assistant Settlement Officer (Consolidation) re quested the Deputy Director of Consolidation to dispose of the objection under Sec tion 9-A (2) of the Act filed by the petitioner as early as possible. The Deputy Director of Consolidation thereafter called for a fresh report calling for an explanation as to why the improvement made on the land in dis pute had not been noted in the C. H. Form 2-A at the time of consolidation Partal. In the meanwhile, the Consolidation Officer disposed of the objections filed by the petitioner vide Judgment and order dated 30-10-83, he came to the conclusion that taking into consideration the existing con structions on the land in dispute and the trees standing; thereon the said land was not fit for consolidation and the assertions made in the objection filed by the respon dents were not correct the land in dispute was, therefore, ordered to be kept out side consolidation scheme allowing the objec tions filed by the petitioner.