R.H. Zaidi, J. - (1.) Present petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India arises out of the proceedings under Sections 20/21 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act and is directed against the orders dated 25.2.2001 and 1.5.1998, contained in Annexures 7 and 3 respectively to the writ petition.
(2.) From the facts unfolded in the writ petition and other material on the record, it appears that plot No. 50 was proposed to be allotted to respondent No. 10. The petitioner was allotted three chaks. His one chak was allotted on plot No. 76. Petitioner, on publication of the provisional consolidation scheme, filed an objection before the Assistant Consolidation Officer claiming that his chak allotted on plot No. 76 be abolished and he should be given his third chak on plot No. 50 which, according to him, was being used as manure pits.The claim of the petitioner was contested by the respondents No. 3 and 4, who pleaded that the petitioner has got no concern with plot No. 50. The said plot was never earmarked for manure pits, therefore, the petitioner has got no right to get the same allotted in his name. The Consolidation Officer, after going through the material on the record and after hearing the parties, dismissed the objection after recording the findings on the relevant questions against the petitioner. Against the order passed by the Consolidation Officer, several appeals were filed before the Settlement Officer Consolidation including the appeal filed by the petitioner. The said appeals were filed after expiry of the period of limitation. The Settlement Officer Consolidation after hearing the parties held that no case for interference in the order of the Consolidation Officer was at all made out and that the appeals were also liable to be dismissed on the ground of limitation. Having recorded the said findings, the Settlement Officer Consolidation dismissed the appeals by his judgment and order dated 1.5.1998 on merits. It was held that the order passed by the Consolidation Officer was on merits and was passed after hearing the parties. The order dated 1.5.1998 passed by the Settlement Officer Consolidation became final as the validity of the said order was not challenged by anybody. The petitioner instead of challenging the validity of the order passed by the Settlement Officer Consolidation dated 1.5.1998 filed revision against the orders passed by the Consolidation Officer and the Settlement Officer Consolidation, again challenging the validity of the orders dated 1.5.1998, 31.3.1997 and 26.2.1996, before the Deputy Director of Consolidation. The Deputy Director of Consolidation, after perusing the evidence on the record and after hearing the parties, held that the appeal as framed and filed by the petitioner was legally not maintainable as against two independent orders one appeal could not be filed and that the earlier order passed by the Settlement Officer Consolidation became final. It was also observed that from the map available on the record, it was apparent that between the house of the petitioner and the plot in dispute, there was a chak road. Therefore, the plot No. 50 cannot be said to be adjoining plot that the petitioner was not the original tenure holder of the said plot and that the original owner of the said plot initially did not raise any objection with respect to allotment of plot No. 50, that the original tenure holder did not file any objection with respect to the said plot. The petitioner, therefore, had no right to get plot No. 50 allotted to him and that he was rightly allotted three chaks. The Deputy Director of Consolidation also observed that the petitioner's chak situated on plot No. 76 cannot be abolished. Having recorded the aforesaid findings, the revision filed by the petitioner was dismissed by judgment and order dated 23.2.2001.
(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently urged that the land in dispute was being used by the petitioner as his manure pit, other persons were also using the said land for the said purpose, therefore, the said plot was liable to be allotted in favour of the petitioner.;