PRAKASH Vs. ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF CONSOLIDATION
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF CONSOLIDATION
Click here to view full judgement.
B.S.VERMA, J. -
(1.) BY means of this petition the petitioners have sought a writ,
order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned
judgment and order dated 20 -8 -1998, passed by Assistant Director of
Consolidation, Muzaffarnagar Camp Haridwar at Roorkee and the judgment
and order dated 4 -6 -1996 passed by the Settlement Officer Consolidation,
Haridwar at Roorkee, Annexure Nos. 8 and 7 respectively to the writ
petition, whereby the revision preferred by the petitioners has been
dismissed by Assistant Director of Consolidation and the appeal preferred
by respondent Nos. 4 to 6 has been allowed by the Settlement Officer
(2.) BRIEFLY stated the facts of the case are that the petitioners, Smt. Usha Devi respondent No.7, was a big tenure holder and she was
allotted chak No. 110in her original holding. This chak No.110 was
subsequently divided in three parts having nos. 110, 110 Sa and 1 10Da.
The petitioners purchased share of Smt. Usha Devi through sale deed dated
11 -6 -1992 of her chak numbered as 110, area 01 bigha, 13 Biswas and 19 Biswansis and at the time of above purchase consolidation had been
finalised and CH form -45 had been prepared, over which Smt. Usha Devi
vender of the petitioners was recorded a tenure holder of chak No. 1
10 -Aa. This Chak No. 1 10 -Aa became new plot No. 115 after the close of consolidation and after issuance of notification U/S 52 of U.P.
Consolidation of Holdings Act. On the basis of the sale deed dated
11 -6 -1992 the mutation was made in the revenue record by Naib Tehsildar of the area.
(3.) THE dispute arose when after the lapse of approximate five years, the respondents 4,5 and 6 preferred an appeal against the order
passed by Assistant Consolidation Officer dated 23 -12 -1990, which was
passed by way of compromise in favour of respondents 4 to 6 that on new
plot No. 115 name of Smt. Usha Devi has wrongly been entered and the
names of respondents 4 to 6 should have been entered. The appeal was
preferred before the Settlement Officer Consolidation and the delay in
filing the appeal was condoned by the SOC and the appeal was allowed vide
judgment and order dated 4 -6 -1996 and the order dated 23 -12 -1990 passed
by Assistant Consolidation Officer was set aside and it was directed to
enter the names of respondents 4 to 6 on the land of petitioners on new
chak No. 115 on the basis of sale deed dated 7 -9 -90. Aggrieved further by
the order of SOC the petitioners preferred revision before the respondent
No.1 Assistant Director of Consolidation, Muzaffarnagar, Camp Haridwar at
Roorkee. The respondent No.1 without considering this aspect that plot
No. 115 was not in existence at the time when the compromise was made
before the Assistant Consolidation Officer, between the respondents 4 to
6 and 7. Feeling aggrieved this writ petition has been filed.
The writ petition has been filed on the ground that the SOC as well as the revisional Court have not considered this aspect of the
matter that the sale deed which has been annexed as Annexure No.5 to the
counter affidavit, on the basis of which compromise was made, whereby
plot Nos. 358 area 0 -0 -12, 361 area 1 -5 -0, 362 area, 0 -2 -0, 393 area
0 -6 -15, 395 area 0 -0 -1, total area 01 bigha, 14 biswas and 8 biswansis of revenue village Khatki Pargana and Tehsil Roorkee have been purchased.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.