PHERAI Vs. UPPER ZILADHIKARI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Short counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondent Nos. 3, 4/1 and 4/2, is taken on record.

(2.) Heard Shri Suresh Chandra Tripathi, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Bhola Nath Yadav, Advocate, representing respondent Nos. 3, 4/1 and 4/2 An order dated 23.6.2008 was passed by the Consolidation Officer, Jaunpur, i.e., respondent No. 2 (hereinafter referred to as, 'C.O.') on objections filed by respondents ostensibly under Section 20 of the Uttar Pradesh Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as, 'Act, 1953'), whereby the C.O. amended the allotment of chaks previously made by him vide his order dated 20.1.2001. The order dated 23.6.2008 passed by the C.O. recites that the said order was being passed with the consent of the parties. The petitioner filed Revision No. 61/2016 under Section 48 of the Act, 1953 before the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Jaunpur, i.e., respondent No. 1 (hereinafter referred to as, 'D.D.C') in which amongst other grounds he raised the plea that he had not consented to the order dated 23.6.2008 and the said order was passed without giving any opportunity of hearing to the him and the order dated 23.6.2008 passed by the C.O. was without jurisdiction.

(3.) The D.D.C. vide his order dated 29.6.2019 dismissed the revision filed by the petitioner on the ground that the order dated 23.6.2008 was passed with the consent of the parties and setting aside the aforesaid order shall disturb the possession of the parties. For the reasons stated above, the D.D.C. refused to interfere in the revision filed against the order dated 23.6.2008. In his order dated 29.6.2019, the D.D.C. has also recorded the fact that as the order dated 20.1.2001 was previously passed by the C.O. regarding the disputed chaks, therefore, the C.O. could not have passed the order dated 23.6.2008. The orders dated 23.6.2008 and 29.6.2019 passed by the S.O.C. and the D.D.C. have been challenged in the present writ petition.