SHIVNANDAN Vs. D.D.C.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri S. K. Tyagi, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Yogesh Kumar Sigh, Advocate holding brief of Sri Amit Tirpathi, learned counsel for respondent No. 4.

(2.) Present writ petition has been filed challenging the order dated 21.10.2011 passed by Respondent No.1- Deputy Director of Consolidation, Meerut in Revision No. 135 whereby the revision filed by the petitioner was allowed and the order passed by Respondent No.2- Settlement Officer Consolidation, Meerut dated 31.03.2011 and the order dated 29.01.2007 passed by the Consolidation Officer, Meerut were set aside and the matter was remitted to the Settlement Officer with the direction to examine the record and if any error was found in the record then correct the same after hearing the Goan Sabha. It reflects from the record that vide order dated 10.02.1999 passed by Deputy Director of Consolidation in Revision No. 463 filed under Section 48 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 an observation was made that Noor Mohammad should be given a chak of 9 paisa over his Plot No. 544 from the land which is reserved as 'Bachhat', after finalization of the consolidation scheme. An application was filed by Noor Mohammad under Section 42 (A) of the Act, 1953 in the year 2007 for making correction in the revenue record. The application filed by Noor Mohammad was allowed by Consolidation Officer, vide order dated 29.01.2007 and correction was made in revenue record and land reserved for 'Bachhat' was given to Noor Mohammad having valuation of 9 paisa.

(3.) Correction was also made that Plot No. 1432 be recorded as a 'Temple' in place of 'Toilet' which was not available at the spot. The said order was passed after making spot inspection by Consolidation Officer. Against that order, Appeal No. 418 filed under Section 11 (1) of the Act, 1953 by Respondent Nos. 4 to 13, against the petitioner as well as Goan Sabha was dismissed vide order dated 31.03.2011 and the order dated 29.01.2007 passed by Consolidation Officer was set aside and matter was remitted to Consolidation Officer to decide the matter afresh, after making spot inspection as the public utility land has been disturbed by Consolidation Officer which is not within the scope of Section 42 (A) of the Act, 1953. The Settlement Officer Consolidation also recorded that the appeal against the order passed by the Consolidation Officer is not maintainable under Section 11 (1) of the Act, 1953 but exercised the power treating it to be a complaint by remitting the matter to the Consolidation Officer. Against that order, petitioner filed a revision which was allowed vide order dated 21.10.2011 and matter was remitted to the Settlement Officer Consolidation itself.