AMRESHWAR PRATAP SAHI, J. - (1.) HEARD Sri Rishikesh Tripathi, learned Counsel for the petitioners and Sri A.K. Singh, learned Counsel for the heirs of respondent No. 5 and the respondent Nos. 6 and 7 and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent Nos. 1 to 4.
(2.) THIS petition came to be filed assailing the proceedings undertaken by the Assistant Consolidation Officer for measurement of a Chakroad over plot No. 673 in village and post Baurawa, Pargana Saidpur, District Ghazipur. Learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that the said proceedings are without jurisdiction and even otherwise, the alleged demarcation which has been carried out, has been done ignoring the order of the Deputy Director of Consolidation dated 30th of June, 2003. It is further submitted that no such demarcation could have been conducted at the instance of the respondent No. 5- Sudarshan on the basis of a miscellaneous application on a Tehsil Divas. This Court entertained the petition and the following interim order was passed on 19.2.2010: "Heard learned Counsel for the petitioners. Notice on behalf of respondents No. 1 to 4 has already been accepted by learned Standing Counsel. Issue notice to the respondents No. 5 to 7 returnable at an early date. The respondents are directed to file counter-affidavit within four weeks. The petitioners shall have three weeks thereafter to file rejoinder affidavit. List thereafter. Till the next date of listing, the pai- maise done by Consolidation Officer on 31.12.2009 shall not be given effect to." Subsequently, it appears that the matter was again argued on 29.8.2011 and this Court had passed the following order: "Raising a short controversy with regard to location of tube well, the present writ petition which arises out of proceedings of demarcation has been filed. Admittedly, Plot No. 672 has been allotted to the petitioners. He has also admitted that Plot No. 673 is a Chak Road. The contention of the petitioners is that there is a tube-well which lies in his Plot No. 672 but on the application filed by the contesting respondent, measurement done in the ab- sence of the petitioners and the said tube-well has been shown beyond Plot No. 672. The learned Counsel for the parties jointly prayed that let there be a demarcation of Plot No. 672 and Plot No. 673. By way of an interim measure, it is therefore, provided that the parties may file an application before the Consolidation Officer along with the certified copy of this order who will fix a date for demarcation and the demarcation shall be carried by Lekh Pal under his supervision after giving prior notice to the parties concerned. It is expected that the entire exercise shall be completed within a period of one month. List after one month. The interim order is extended till the next date of listing."
(3.) WHEN the matter was heard today Sri A.K. Singh, learned Counsel for the contesting respondents on the basis of instructions received has stated at the bar that the village has not yet been de- notified under section 52 of the Uttar Pradesh Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as 'the 1953 Act'). The dispute apparently appears to be a contest with regard to the location of the chakroad over plot No. 673. After the matter was heard at length, Sri A.K. Singh on the basis of the averments made in paragraph 6 of the counter- affidavit, conceded to this position that no party can be permitted to encroach upon the chakroad and if the contention is that the tube-well or the pumping set of the respondents is over the said plot No. 673 then the same can also be removed.;