KOMAL Vs. D D C

JUDGEMENT

(1.) As both the writ petitions have been filed against the same order dated 30.4.1992 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation in Revision No. 2151 and were connected vide order dated 20.10.1992 passed by this Court in Writ Petition No. 27573 of 1992, therefore, both the writ petitions are being decided together.

(2.) Sri R.C. Singh, Advocate represents the petitioner in Writ Petition No. 17065 of 1992 and respondent no. 6 in Writ Petition No. 27573 of 1992. Notices were issued to respondent no. 4 but no one has appeared on behalf of the aforesaid respondent to contest the case and in view of the office reports dated 15.5.2014, 21.5.2014 and 6.2.2015, service of notice on the aforesaid respondent is deemed to be sufficient under Chapter VIII Rule 12 Exp. II of the High Court Rules.

(3.) The facts of the case are that Komal i.e. the petitioner in Writ Petition No. 27573 of 1992 is chakdar no. 27, Desh Nath i.e. respondent no. 4 is chakdar no. 309 and Khartak and Chhangur i.e. respondent nos. 5 and 6 are chakdar nos. 34 and 47, respectively. Plot No. 569 (area 762 Kari) was the original holding of Komal in which he had half share, i.e. 381 Kari. Plot No. 511 was the original holding of respondent no. 6 i.e. Chhangur. Plot Nos. 569 is adjacent to road and Plot No. 511 was near abadi. During the consolidation proceedings held in the village under Uttar Pradesh Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as, 'Act, 1953'), petitioner i.e. Komal was allotted a chak on Plot No. 569 consisting of merely 50 Kari on Plot No. 569 till the stage of Consolidation Officer. Aggrieved by the order of the Consolidation Officer, petitioner i.e. Komal filed appeal before the Settlement Officer of Consolidation in which the area of Plot No. 569 in the chak allotted to the petitioner i.e. chak no. 27 was increased to 100 Kari. In the arrangement of chaks as made till the stage of Consolidation Officer and Settlement Officer of Consolidation, respondent no. 6 was also dislocated from his original holding and allotted a chak on Plot No. 569. Respondent no. 6 was not aggrieved by the arrangement of chaks as made till the stage of Settlement Officer of Consolidation as even though he was dislocated from his original holding i.e., Plot No. 511 which was adjacent to abadi, he was allotted a chak on Plot No. 569 which was adjacent to road. However, the petitioner, aggrieved by the arrangement of chaks as finalized till the stage of Settlement Officer of Consolidation whereby he was allotted merely 100 Kari in Plot No. 569, filed Revision No. 2151 before the Deputy Director of Consolidation. It is pertinent to state that till the stage of Settlement Officer of Consolidation, respondent nos. 4 and 5 were also allotted chak on Plot No. 569 even though it was not their original holding. The grievance of the petitioner was that as his original holding was adjacent to road, therefore, he should be allotted a chak according to his share in Plot No. 569, which was 381 Kari. The Deputy Director of Consolidation after considering the fact that Plot No. 569 was adjacent to the road and was the original holding of the petitioner in which the share of the petitioner was 381 Kari, modified the arrangement of chak as finalized till the stage of Settlement Officer of Consolidation and increased the area of Plot No. 569 in chak no. 27 to 194 Kari but still included some portion of the said plot in the chak allotted to respondent no. 4. Consequently, the chak allotted to respondent no. 6 which was adjacent to the road till the stage of Settlement Officer of Consolidation was shifted depriving him of a chak adjacent to road even though the original holding of respondent no. 6 i.e. Plot No. 511 was valuable as it was adjacent to abadi. Aggrieved by the order dated 30.4.1992 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Komal has filed Writ Petition No. 27573 of 1992 so far as it fails to allot chak to the petitioner according to his share in Plot No. 569, and Chhangur has filed Writ Petition No. 17065 of 1992 praying that the said order passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation be set-aside and he may be allotted chak adjacent to road.