AWADH NARAIN Vs. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF CONSOLIDATION VARANASI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution has been filed by the petitioner for quashing the orders dated 29.10.1994 and 27.2.1993 and for writ of mandamus staying the operation of the aforesaid two orders.

(2.) From the order sheet dated 27th April, 1998 it is apparent that office report dated 24th April, 1998 was that the respondents are not served and substitution application was filed. Shri R. P. Shastri, Advocate has made a statement that he is representing respondent Nos. 3/1 and 3/2, i.e.. the proposed heirs of the deceased respondent, who are mentioned in the substitution application dated 11th April, 1997 and is ready to argue the case finally at the admission stage. As the parties have exchanged counter and rejoinder-affidavits, therefore, the matter was heard and the supplementary affidavit was also asked for as per order dated 29th April. 1998, which has been filed, therefore, the matter was finally heard with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties at the admission stage itself.

(3.) The brief facts, as stated in the petition, are that the petitioner got chak over plot No. 1 whereas the contesting respondent No. 3 had his chak over plot No. 32. Against the decision taken by the Assistant Consolidation Officer. Varanasi, the petitioner preferred appeal under Section 21 of the Consolidation of Holdings Act. His contention was that his 1st chak over plot No. 45/1 has been allotted whereas he has been given second chak at plot Nos. 77 and 78. He demanded that his second chak at plot Nos. 77 and 78 should be abolished and he may be given chak over plot Nos. 82 and 83. His further contention was that he was given chak at plot No. 45/1 whereas others were chak at plot Nos. 35, 37 and 38.