S.K.Singh, J. - (1.) Heard learned Counsel for the parties.
(2.) The challenge in this petition is the judgment of the Deputy Director of Consolidation dated 30.11.2000 (Annexure 17 to the writ petition) by which revision filed by the opposite parties has been allowed. After hearing learned Counsel for the parties, this Court feels that mention of facts in detail is not at all required and thus after brief note, the matter is being disposed of.
(3.) The dispute between the parties centers round allotment of plot No. 396/3, in the chak of the petitioner, which the petitioner claims, has been rightly valued by the order of the Consolidation Officer dated 5.5.1998 of which allotment has been made on 26.6.1998, but at the same time, Counsel for the respondents submits that the aforesaid plot was made chak out and as the respondent is the owner of land, its valuation arid its allotment in the chak of the petitioner, that too without notice or opportunity to the respondents, being clearly illegal, has been rightly set aside. In view of the aforesaid dispute, appears to be on the facts that whether land of plot referred above was left as bachat and in lieu, respondent was allotted any land. In the event, it is found that the land was fit as bachat and in lieu, thereof, respondent was given valuation prima facie the respondent may have no claim to raise any projection but at the same time, if it is found that the land was kept out of consolidation and as being claimed by the respondent, that he is the owner of the plot which is also dear from CH From 23, then filing of objection by the petitioner after about 16 years of publication of notification under section 9 of UPCH Act, prima facie cannot be justified.;