PHOOL SINGH Vs. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF CONSOLIDATION SAHARANPUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PRAKASH Krishna, J. Heard Shri M. K. Tripathi, Advocate for the petitioner and Shri Sumit Daga, learned Counsel for the contesting respondents. As jointly agreed by them, the writ petition is dis posed of finally at the admission stage it self.

(2.) THE contesting respondents have already filed a counter affidavit. THE pres ent writ petition arises out of allotment of Chaks under the provisions of U. P. C. H Act. It is not in dispute that petitioner's original holdings are plot Nos. 826 and 804. Accord ing to the petitioner, plot No. 796 belongs to Sarjeet Singh, the brother of petitioner. At the Consolidation Officer stage, the pe titioner was allotted one compact Chak area 0-18-4 high a over plot No. 796 and his brother Sarjeet Singh was allotted his chak No. 1918 over plot No. 825. Minor adjustments were made in appeal by the Settle ment Officer Consolidation, to which the petitioner has no grievance. It appears that the respondent Nos. 3 and 4 challenged the order of the Settlement Officer Consolida tion further by way of revision which came up for consideration before the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Saharanpur in re vision No. 1796, Sahendra and others v. Phool Singh and others. THE said revision has been allowed by the impugned order dated 29th October, 2005. THE said order is under challenge in the present writ petition.

(3.) ON a bare perusal of the im pugned order dated 29th October, 2005 it appears that while passing it, the Deputy Director of Consolidation has not at all ad verted to the case of the petitioner. The grievance of the petitioner is that he was allotted Chak at his original holding and there being no justification, his original holding has been disturbed by the im pugned order.