- (1.) HEARD Sri A. K. Malviya for the petitioners and Sri Shishir Tiwari for respondents - 4 to 8. Notices on behalf of respondents - 1 to 3 has been accepted by Chief Standing Counsel. The counsel for the respondents propose that in the facts of the case, no counter affidavit is required to be filed and the writ petition may be decided finally.
(2.) THE writ petition has been filed against the orders of Deputy Director of Consolidation dated 26.9.2013, Settlement Officer, Consolidation dated 21.11.1994 and Consolidation Officer dated 29.5.1991, passed in the proceedings u/s 9A of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953, relating to correction of area of plot nos. 305, 306, 307 and 349 of village Baladeeh, pargana Soraon, district Allahabad. During partal, the discrepancy in the area of plot nos. 305, 306, 307 and 349 were found, accordingly, the dispute was referred to the CO, who by the order dated 29.5.1991, directed for correction of the area of plot nos. 305, 306 and 349, according to their area as recorded in the settlement record. However, no order has been passed in respect of the area of plot no. 307, which was also found short during partal. In this order, since the CO has omitted to decide the dispute relating to discrepancy of the area of plot no. 307, as such, the petitioner filed an appeal (registered as Appeal no. 2012) before the SOC, which was allowed by the order dated 8.8.2001 and the matter was remanded to the CO for deciding the dispute relating to discrepancy of area of plot no. 307 also. However, in the meantime, another appeal was filed by Bholanath and Others (the contesting respondents), i.e. Appeal No. 2158, which has been dismissed by the order dated 21.11.1994. Bholanath and Others filed a revision (registered as Revision No. 1359) against the aforesaid order, which has been dismissed by the order dated 26.9.2013. The DDC in the order dated 26.9.2013 found that as the demarcation line on the spot of plot nos. 305, 306, 307 and 349 were dismantled, as such, fresh survey and demarcation of these plots was not possible. Accordingly, the CO has rightly directed for recording the area of these plots as recorded in previous settlement record.
(3.) THE counsel for the petitioner submits that since the DDC has recorded a finding that the demarcation line of these plots were dismantled and fresh survey and demarcation was not possible, accordingly, in view of this finding, area of plot no. 307 is also liable to be recorded according to the area as mentioned in the last settlement record. He submits that otherwise, the area of plot no. 307 which was found short and the short area went in plot no. 305 will not be compensated and material prejudice will be caused to the petitioner. He submits that the matter has already been remanded by the SOC to the CO for correcting the area of plot no. 307, which is still pending before Consolidation Officer, who is not proceeding to decide the objection in this respect, although, the case was remanded by the order dated 8.8.2001 and more than 12 years have passed, due to pendency of the revision. As common dispute was raised in respect of all the four plots, as such, the Deputy Director of Consolidation ought to have directed the Consolidation Officer for correcting area of plot no. 307 also.;