BHAGIRATHI Vs. D D C AND ORS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Shri H.P. Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri P.K. Kashyap, learned counsel representing respondent No. 4 and learned Standing Counsel representing respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3.

(2.) The petitioner and respondent No. 4 were co-tenure holder of their original holding i.e. Plot No. 715. The petitioner is Chakdar No. 563 while respondent No. 4 is Chakdar no. 91 During the consolidation proceedings in the Village, the petitioner as well as respondent No. 4 were allotted Chak on Plot No. 715 according to their share. As petitioner was also allotted Chak on Plot No. 830 and 831/2, therefore, his share on Plot No. 715 was reduced by the Assistant Consolidation Officer (hereinafter referred to as, 'A.O.C.'). The position of Chak of the petitioner on Plot No. 715 as proposed by the A.C.O. was to the satisfaction of the petitioner. However, respondent No. 4 was not satisfied with the settlement made by A.C.O. between the petitioner and respondent No. 4 on Plot No. 715. Thus, respondent No. 4 filed objections under Section 20 of Uttar Pradesh Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as, 'Act, 1953') praying that he may be allotted Chak on the Southern portion of Plot No. 715. The aforesaid objection was accepted by the Consolidation Officer vide his order dated 29.3.1997 and arrangement of Chaks on Plot No. 715 between petitioner and respondent No. 4 was changed by the Consolidation Officer. Against the aforesaid order dated 29.3.1997 passed by the Consolidation Officer, petitioner filed an Appeal under Section 21(2) of the Act, 1953 before Settlement Officer of Consolidation (hereinafter referred to as, 'S.O.C.') stating that under a family settlement between petitioner and respondent No. 4, Plot No. 715 was divided between him and respondent No. 4 and petitioner was in possession on the Southern Side of the said plot under the family settlement. It was also stated by the petitioner that Plot No. 831 on which he was allotted Chak was an overcast land. On the said facts, the petitioner prayed that respondent No. 4 may also be allotted a Chak on Plot No. 831 and arrangement of Chaks on Plot No. 715 as made by Assistant Consolidation Officer may be restored. The S.O.C. vide his order dated 24.4.1999 rejected the prayer of the petitioner regarding alteration of Chaks on Plot No. 831, but considering the quality of Plot No. 831, arranged the Chaks allotted to petitioner and respondent No. 4 on Plot No. 715 in a manner that Chak of the petitioner on Plot No. 715 was on the Southern Side and running East to West. The aforesaid settlement was made by the S.O.C. allegedly on the basis of possession. Against the order dated 24.4.1999 passed by S.O.C., the respondent No. 4 filed a Revision numbered as Revision No. 305 of 2002 before the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Gorakhpur (hereinafter referred to as, 'D.D.C.'), which has been allowed by the D.D.C. vide his order dated 10.3.2003. In his aforesaid order, the D.D.C. has recorded his opinion that as the petitioner and respondent No. 4 were brothers, therefore, it would be appropriate that their Chaks on Plot No. 715 were arranged in a manner that both of them got a share in the plot on Eastern as well as Western Side. The D.D.C. in his order dated 10.3.2003 has also recorded a finding that respondent No. 4 had his Gumti on the South East part of Plot No. 715, therefore, respondent No. 4 should be allotted a Chak on the Eastern Side of Plot No. 715 and the Chak should run from North to South. The order dated 10.3.2003 has been challenged in the present writ petition.

(3.) It has been stated by the counsel for the petitioner that Chaks allotted to petitioner and respondent No. 4 on Plot No. 715 have been re-numbered as Plot Nos. 2067 and 2068. It has also been stated by the counsel for the petitioner that the main road constructed by P.W.D. exists on the Eastern side of Plot No. 715 (old number).