- (1.) HEARD Sri C.K. Rai for the petitioners and Sri M.C. Singh for the respondents.
(2.) THE writ petition has been filed against the order of Deputy Director of Consolidation dated 28.10.2009 passed in chak allotment proceedings under U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953(hereinafter referred to as the Act). Plot nos. 103 and 372/1 were the original holding of the petitioners, in which they had 1/3 share. Assistant Consolidation Officer proposed two chaks to the petitioners i.e. first chak was proposed on plot no. 372 etc of an area of 0.029 hectare and second chak was proposed to him on plot no. 103 of an area of 0.085 hectare. The petitioners filed an objection claiming a single chak on plot no. 372. The Consolidation Officer, by order dated 16.12.2008, dismissed the objection of the petitioners. The petitioners filed an appeal (registered as Appeal No. 609) from the order of Consolidation Officer. Settlement Officer, Consolidation heard the appeal and by order dated 30.3.2009 allowed the appeal of the petitioners and allotted a single chak to them on plot no. 372 taking area of plot no. 371 etc which were allotted in chaks of Raghuraj, respondent -4. Due to order of Settlement Officer, Consolidation, Raghuraj, respondent -4 was allotted a third chak on plot no. 412/3.
(3.) RAGHURAJ , therefore, filed a revision (registered as Revision No. 1147/346) from the aforesaid order. The revision was heard by Deputy Director of Consolidation, who by order dated 28.10.2009 held that by the order of Settlement Officer, Consolidation, Raghuraj, respondent -4 was allotted three chaks and his third chak on plot no. 412/3 was an uran chak. He further found that plot no. 370 was the original holding of Raghuraj -respondent -4, therefore, he was allotted a chak of plot no. 370 taking an area of plot no. 371 which was adjacent to plot no. 370. As such, the chak of Raghuraj on plot no. 370 was on his original holding and has been illegally disturbed by Settlement Officer, Consolidation without considering his grievances. It has been further found that plot no. 103 was the original holding of the petitioners and it has been rightly proposed in their chak. Therefore, the allotment of plot no. 103 in the chak of the petitioners was not illegal. On these findings, the revision of respondent -4 has been allowed due to which the position of the petitioners of the stage of Assistant Consolidation Officer has been restored. Hence this writ petition has been filed.;