HAUSILA PRASAD Vs. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF CONSOLIDATION SULTANPUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition has been filed by Hausila Prasad under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for quashing order dated 30.8.97 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation. Sultanpur, opposite party No. 1 in respect of the petitioner's Chak No. 344/1 of village Rebha, Pargana and Tehsil Amethi district Sultanpur (Annexure No. 8).

(2.) Learned counsel for both the parties were heard.

(3.) The brief facts for the purpose of the disposal of the present writ petition are that petitioner Hausila Prasad was allotted Chaks. Out of them the first Chak was in respect of several plots including plot Nos. 344/1 and 344/2 which was the bhumidhari of the petitioner also. That in C. H. Form No. 2A during survey, trees were found by the authorities on plot No. 344/1 ; some of the part of this plot was parti. That a tubewell exists on plot No. 344/2 which is the private source of irrigation. That on the objection of Sarjoo Prasad, opposite party No. 2 the Chak was allotted to him of plot Nos. 145, 146 including plot No. 144. That Sarjoo Prasad challenged the order dated 30.3.96 passed by the Consolidation Officer before the Settlement Officer, Consolidation, Sultanpur. That opposite parties Nos. 3 to 5 had not filed any objection before the Consolidation Officer. However, appeal was filed by all the opposite parties. The appeal was dismissed on 17.8.96 by the Settlement Officer. Consolidation. A revision was filed before the D.D.C., Sultanpur, on 16.9.97 which was allowed and it is under challenge. By the Impugned order the D.D.C. allotted Plot No, 344/1 to the opposite parties in their Chak No. 173 and shifted the Chak of the petitioner which was allotted on his original holding 344/1 on plot Nos. 545, 543 and 544 which originally belonged to the opposite parties. The petitioner says that Chak was arbitrarily shifted which is against Section 19 of the Act. That plot No. 344/1 had 60 paise valuation which was a higher valuation. That allotment of this Chak is as 'Udan Chak and it was the third Chak of the petitioner. The petition has been contested and the main case is that the trees standing on plot No. 344/1 belonged to the opposite parties.