Ashok Bhushan, J. - (1.) These writ petitions raise common questions of law and facts, hence they are being decided by this common judgment. Writ Petition No. 4934 of 1999 is being treated as leading writ petition. Counter and rejoinder-affidavits have been exchanged between the parties in leading writ petition as well as in most of the other writ petitions. Both the parties agree that the writ petition be decided finally at this stage. Consequently, the writ petitions are being decided finally.
(2.) I have heard Sri N. C. Rajvanshi, Senior Advocate in leading Writ Petition No. 4934 of 1999 and in some other writ petitions as well as M/s. S.C. Verma, Prakash Chandra, N.K. Srivastava, Arjun Singhal, W.H. Khan and Sri H.M.B. Sinha for the petitioners in their respective cases and Chief Standing Counsel Sri Ashok Mehta and Sri Sanjay Goswami, learned standing counsel. Alt these writ petitions arise out of the chak allotment proceedings under Section 20 of the U. P. Consolidation of Holding Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred as the 1953 Act). All the writ petitioners pray for quashing of the order dated 22.9.1998 passed by the District Deputy Director of Consolidation, Muzaffar Nagar, by which chutes allotted to the petitioners have been affected. Although the facts and circumstances in which these writ petitions have been filed are more or less common but to understand the controversy in these cases, the facts of leading Writ Petition No. 4934 of 1999 are being noted in detail. The facts of leading Writ Petition No. 4934 of 1999 will also disclose the nature of controversy and the contents of the order passed by the District Deputy Director of Consolidation with regard to all the petitioners.
(3.) Consolidation operation started in village Bhura, Pargana and Tahsil Kerana. District Muzaffar Nagar after issuance of the notification under Section 4 (2) of the 1953 Act which was published on 9.7.1979. Along with village Bhura, there were two other villages, namely, Pahar Mazra and Charao with regard to which common consolidation scheme was framed. In Writ Petition No. 4934 of 1999. there are two petitioners namely. Ram Kumar and Kabool. It has been stated that by an order dated 24.1.1995, a reference under Section 48 (3) of the 1953 Act was accepted for giving effect to the order dated 13.11.1995 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation in Revision Nos. 144, 148 and 145. It has been stated that by the aforesaid order dated 13.11.1995. partition was directed. While approving reference vide order dated 24.1.1996, it has been stated that the petitioner No. 1 was allotted plot No. 2681/2 area 1 Bigha. 14 Bishwas and 4 Dhoor which was shown to be Bachat plot in chart appended with the order of the Deputy Director of Consolidation. It has been stated that the aforesaid order dated 24.1.1996 became final and no appeal or revision was filed. It has been stated in the writ petition that the District Deputy Director of Consolidation vide impugned judgment dated 22.9.1998 has made changes in the chak allotted to the petitioners and other persons. It has been stated that by the order dated 22.9.1998, the District Deputy Director of Consolidation has taken away several plots allotted to the petitioners by order dated 24.1.1996. It has been stated that there is no discussion in the judgment dated 28.9.1998 nor any reason has been given for taking away the plots allotted to the petitioners vide earlier order dated 24.1.1996. It has been specifically stated in paragraph 7 of the writ petition that before passing the order dated 22.9.1998. petitioners were not given any kind of opportunity of hearing nor any notice was issued to the petitioners. With aforesaid allegations, the writ petition was filed.;