CHANDRAMA PRASAD Vs. SETTLEMENT OFFICER CONSOLIDATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri Satish Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner.

(2.) The present writ petition has been filed challenging the order dated 18.4.2019 passed by the Settlement Officer Consolidation Varanasi in Appeals Nos. 98/530/2500+Appeal Nos. 999/531/2501 (Chandrama Prasad Vs. State) filed under Rule 109 -A (3) of the U.P. Consolidation of Holding Rules 1954 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Rules') whereby the appeals were dismissed affirming the order dated 15.7.2000 in Case no. 61 filed under Rule 109-A of the Rules.

(3.) The brief facts involved in the present writ petition are thus; the application under Rule 109-A was filed by Smt. Chamela Devi for implementation of the order dated 12.6.2000 passed by the Settlement Officer Consolidation in Appeal No. 669 filed under Section 11 (1) of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 ( hereinafter referred to as the 'Act').; The application filed by the ancestors of the contesting respondents was allowed vide order dated 15.7.2000 whereby the name of the respondents were directed to be mutated in the revenue record pursuant to the order dated 15.6.2000. Against that order, two appeals were filed by the petitioners on 18.7.2000 under Rule 109 (3) of the Rules. The appeal filed by the petitioners were dismissed vide impugned order dated 18.4.2019 affirming the order passed by the Consolidation Officer dated 15.7.2000. Against the order of Settlement Officer Consolidation, the present writ petition has been filed.