BRIJ KUMAR Vs. D.D.C.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition has been filed by Brij Kumar and Uma Shankar both sons of Harihar, of whom Brij Kumar is no more and is represented by his heirs and legal representatives, petitioner Nos. 1/1, 1/2 and 1/3. The petitioners assail an order dated 17.06.1997 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Gorakhpur in Revision No. 3201 and a further order dated 25.06.1992, passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Gorakhpur in Revision No. 2830, earlier filed by the petitioner.

(2.) Heard Sri A.K. Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri H.P. Mishra, Advocate holding brief of Sri G.M. Tripathi, learned counsel for the respondent No. 2.

(3.) The dispute in the instant petition arises from objections filed by the petitioner under Section 20 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (for short, the 'Act') dated 10.07.1992. These objections were filed beyond time with a prayer to condone the delay. The claim put forth in the objections was that the petitioner was not satisfied with the Assistant Consolidation Officer's proposal about allotment of the two Chaks to Smt. Dharmraji, widow of late Ram Priti, whose rights, the petitioners purchased through a registered sale deed, dated 09.01.1991. The Assistant Consolidation Officer had proposed two Chaks to Smt. Dharmraji, the petitioner's vendor, comprising inter alia Khasra Nos. 55, 119, 132, 225, 51, 221, 146 and certain other plot numbers. Smt. Dharmraji, who was the widow of the petitioners' father's brother, Ram Priti and the Bhoomidhar of Chak No. 65, never objected to the Assistant Consolidation Officer's proposal. The petitioners upon purchasing the holdings of Smt. Dharmraji comprising Chak No. 65, filed these time barred objections, as aforesaid, on basis that they had become Chak holders in her stead, post execution of the sale deed in their favour. The petitioners claimed that in their right as holders of Chak No. 65, they were entitled to restoration of one of the two Chaks on their original holding in Khasra No. 132, excluding plot numbers that were not theirs, in the manner that on the southern side of this Chak they be given a single Chak oriented in length from East to West. It was, alternatively claimed, that in the event according to the rights purchased by them in Chak No. 65 that was not feasible, going by the area to which the petitioners were found entitled, a Chak be allotted to them, including their original holding in Khasra No. 132, entering plot numbers again on the Eastern side in a single Chak, oriented from East to West in length in a manner that the Chak is properly rectangulated.