USMAN GANI Vs. A D C & OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard counsel for the petitioner.

(2.) Petitioner is chak holder no.49 while respondent no.6 was chak holder no.124. Petitioner and respondent no.6 were co-tenure holders. Plot no.741 was the original holding of both petitioner and respondent no.6. During the consolidation proceedings held in the Village, petitioner filed objections under section 20 of the U.P Consolidation of Holdings Act (hereinafter referred to as Act) before the Consolidation Officer against the settlement of chaks made by the Assistant Settlement Officer of Consolidation.

(3.) The grievance of the petitioner was that by the settlement made at the stage of Assistant Settlement Officer of Consolidation, petitioner was deprived of his private source of irrigation on Plot No.741 and was also given less share on the aforesaid plots. It was contended by the petitioner before the Consolidation Officer that share of the petitioner in the original holdings was 6-7-6 and of respondent no.6 was 6-7-0. However, in the settlement prepared by the Assistant Settlement Officer of Consolidation, the petitioner was given lesser area than respondent no.6 i.e merely 5-3-15 while the area allotted to respondent no.6 is 6-18- 11. The objections filed by the petitioner were allowed by the Consolidation Officer vide his order dated 7.6.1989 and the arrangement made by the Assistant Settlement Officer of Consolidation was modified. The modification relevant for the purposes of the present writ petition was that petitioner was allotted area over plot no.741 which consisted of his private source of irrigation and the total area allotted to the petitioner and respondent no.6 were also modified. Against the order dated 7.6.1989 passed by the Consolidation Officer, respondent no.6 filed an appeal before the Assistant Settlement Officer of Consolidation, which was registered as Appeal No.2024 of 1988 interalia claiming that the house of respondent no.6 existed on the chak allotted to the petitioner on Plot No.741 and therefore, it was prayed that the order dated 7.6.1989 passed by Consolidation Officer be set aside and the settlement as made at the stage of Assistant Consolidation Officer, be restored. The Assistant Settlement Officer of Consolidation vide his order dated 30.12.1989 dismissed Appeal No.2024 of 1988 on the ground that the order dated 7.6.1989 passed by the Consolidation Officer was an adjustment of the conflicting claims of two co-tenure holders regarding the area of chaks allotted to them. Against the order dated 30.12.1989 passed by Assistant Settlement Officer of Consolidation,respondent no.6 filed a revision under section 48 of the Act before respondent no.1 which was registered as Revision No.1341. Respondent no.1 vide his order dated 6.5.1991 allowed the aforesaid revision and modified the Chak allotted to the petitioner and respondent no.6 on Plot No.741. The order dated 6.5.1991 has been challenged in the present writ petition.