UDAI BHAN Vs. D.D.C.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution, challenging the orders dated 23.03.1994, 23.05.1993 and 28.08.1991 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Gorakhpur, the Settlement Officer of Consolidation, Gorakhpur and the Consolidation Officer, Piparaich, Tehsil Sadar, District Gorakhpur, in proceedings under Section 20 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act (for short the 'Act').

(2.) Heard Sri Muralidhar Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Anil Kumar Singh Bagh'el, learned Addl. C.S.C. appearing on behalf of respondent nos. 1, 2 and 3. No one appears on behalf of respondent nos. 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8, despite service.

(3.) The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that plot no. 88 is his original holdings, which is the largest area and houses his private source of irrigation. Beside that it also bears trees of different variety like mango, shisham etc. The Consolidation Officer, going against the fundamental principle of carvation of chak allotted the said khasra number to respondent no.4, Ganesh and deprived the petitioner of the maximum part of plot no. 88. The petitioner has also been deprived of his private source of irrigation situate there. The petitioner has been given a chak comprising plot nos. 78, 76 and 87; none of these are part of his original holding. It is the further grievance of the petitioner that the area of land comprising his original holdings in plot no. 88 that has been taken away is valuable roadside land, and the petitioner has been pushed to a remote corner; that beside, he has been deprived of his valuable resources. The petitioner appealed to the Settlement Officer of Consolidation on 23.04.1991. The appeal came up for determination before the Settlement Officer of Consolidation on 23.05.1993. The Settlement Officer of Consolidation modified the order of the Consolidation Officer and made it the worse for the petitioner by pushing the petitioner farther from the roadside part of his land in plot no. 88. The petitioner's specific grievance against the Settlement Officer's orders also is to the effect that he bestowed no consideration upon the petitioner's case about the largest part of his original holding being in plot no. 88, as also the fact that he has been deprived of his source of irrigation. The petitioner's grievance regarding deprivation of his roadside land in khasra no. 88 has also not been considered by the Settlement Officer of Consolidation.