RAMKALI Vs. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF CONSOLIDATION AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri Bhola Nath Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the State respondents.

(2.) As per the case of the petitioner, one Baijnath executed a registered sale deed in favour of the petitioner in the year 2011. Subsequently, objection under Section 9A (2) of U.P.C.H. Act, 1953 was filed by Baijnath, which was dismissed and the land in dispute was vested in the State Government as the sale deed is in violation of Section 157 (A) of U.P.Z.A and L.R. Act. Subsequently, Baijnath filed an appeal, which was partly allowed by the Settlement Officer Consolidation vide order dated 31.12.2013 and the matter was remitted back to the Consolidation Officer for deciding the matter afresh.

(3.) It is stated in the writ petition that after the order passed by the Settlement Officer Consolidation, no proceeding pursuant to the said order dated 31.12.2013 has been drawn by the Consolidation Officer. Subsequently, a reference was made, which was accepted by the Deputy Director of Consolidation vide order dated 1.1.2015. As per the case of the petitioner, the land in dispute is the abadi land and therefore, the Settlement Officer Consolidation has clearly recorded a finding that provisions of Section 157 (A) of U.P.Z.A & L.R. Act are not attracted. It is further stated in the writ petition that subsequently in the proceeding for allotment of chak, Consolidation Officer allotted the chak in the name of State Government vide order dated 10.10.2013, which was affirmed by the Settlement Officer Consolidation vide order dated 17.11.2014. Thereafter, a revision was filed, which too was dismissed vide order dated 21.5.2015. Subsequently, the order passed by the consolidation authorities with regard to the allotment of chak were implemented vide order dated 5.9.2018 in a proceeding under Rule 109A of U.P.C.H. Rules, 1954.