RAM CHEEJ Vs. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF CONSOLIDATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) P. C. Verma, J. By means of the present writ petition, petitioner has challenged the orders dated 11. 9. 1997 & 26. 8. 1999 (Annexures No. IV and Annexure No, 10 to the writ petition) passed by the respondent nos. 2 and 1 re spectively

(2.) BRIEF facts giving rise to the present petition are that the petitioner and re spondents no, 3 and 4 are real brothers and their father was freedom fighter. The Government allotted 90 Bigha of land in three pieces in two different villages i. e. Pratappur and Inderpur being Plot No. 18 area 29 Bigha, Plot No. 21 area about 33 bigha, Plot No. 40/102 situated at Village Inderpur having an area of 29 Bigha of land. In the year, 1959, father of the pe titioner died leaving behind the petitioner and respondents no. 3 and 4. Thereafter in the year, 1968, the property was di vided amongst the petitioner and the re spondents no. 3 and 4 under the family settlement. The petitioner was given pos session over the land situated at Village Pratappur Plot No. 21/2 having an area of 0. 6140 Hectares and Plot No. 21/3 having an area of 1. 2500 hectare, re spondent no. 3 was given Plot No. 21/ 1 area 0. 2420 , plot No. 18/2 having an area of 0. 9300 hectare and Plot No, 18/ 3 having an area of 0. 6200 situated at Village Prataprur and the respondent no. 4 was given Plot No. 34 and 40/102 having a total area of 29 Bigha situated at Village Inderpur. In the year, 1995, consolidation proceedings of the village was started and during the consolidation proceeding, a survey was conducted by Survey Amin and after survey, he sent report on 17. 3. 1996 to the Consolidation Officer stating therein that Plot No. 21/1 area 0. 2420 is in physical possession of respondent no. 3 and Plot No. 21/2 area 0. 6140 and Plot No. 21/3 area 1. 2500 are in physical possession of the petitioner. Petitioner made an application before the Consolidation Officer which was registered as Case No. 891 and Plot No. 21/1 and 21/2 was given to the petitioner. On plot No. 21/1 a pumpset boring was found and the valuation of the same was assessed as Rs. 4. 000/ -. Plot Nos. 18/1 and 18/2 were given to the respondent no. 3 and as there were standing ten sheesham trees, eight een mangos, four Mahua, Bans Kothi and four popular, valuation of the same was assessed as Rs. 8000/- recorded in Akar Patra No. 2ka. Consolidation Officer al lotted Plot No. 21/3 amongst Shiv Pujaan, Jai Mangal, Heera Lal and Ranjeet etc. and Plot No. 83 was made new Plot and given to respondent no. 4 Ram Shankar vide order dated 31. 1. 1996.

(3.) THEREAFTER, against the said order, the petitioner preferred a Revision before the respondent no. 1 / Deputy Director of Consolidation. Deputy Director of consoli dated admitted the revision and stayed the proceeding wide order dated 24. 12. 1997. THEREAFTER, the petitioner moved an impleadment application (Annexure No. VI to the writ petition) to implead the name of respondents no. 4 to 8, but the same was not entertained by the respond ent no. 2. The interim order, so granted, was extended from time to time. Again on 26. 8. 1998, the petitioner made an impleadment application before the respondent no. 1, which was objected by the respondent no. 3 stating that there is no need of stay order and impleadment of respondent no. 4 to 7 as the Chak No. 84 was measured on 7. 1999 by the Po lice Force and possession has been taken by the respondent no. 3. After hearing the parties, the respondent no. 1 vide order dated 26. 8. 1999 rejected the revision of the petitioner along with the stay exten sion application.