RAM SURAT RAM (MAURYA), J. - (1.) HEARD Sri Amit Krishan for the petitioner and Sri R.P. Singh for the respondents.
(2.) THE writ petition has been filed against the order of Consolidation Officer dated 30.5.2013, Settlement Officer, Consolidation dated 2.12.2013 and Deputy Director of Consolidation dated 13.1.2014 passed in proceedings under Section 9A of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"). The village in question was placed under consolidation operation sometimes in the year 1990 and a notification under Section 9 had taken place on 25.7.1991. It is alleged on behalf of the respondents that after notification under Section 9, the parties entered into compromise and a written compromise was filed on 28.11.1991 and on the basis of the written compromise, Assistant Consolidation Officer determined the valuation of plot no. 1079 and its sub plots as in CH Form 2 -A some of the sub plots were recorded as grove of guava. In the first chak of the petitioner plot no. 1079/1, area 2 -1 -0 was allotted. Thereafter, plot nos. 1079/1, area 1 -17 -6 bigha, 1079/2 area 4 -10 -0 bigha, 1079/4 area 0 -7 -16 bigha and 1079/5, area 0 -4 -0 bigha was allotted in the second chak of the petitioner. The consolidation proceeding in the village has become over and thereafter the petitioner filed a highly time barred objection under Section 9 of the Act on 31.5.2010 for deleting valuation of plot no. 1079/2 and correcting the sub division of plot no. 1079/1 and 1079/2. It has been stated by the petitioner that plot no. 1079/3, area 1 -16 - 0 bigha, 1079/4, area 1 -0 -0 bigha , 1079/1, area 1 -0 -0 bigha, 1079/5, area 0 -4 - 0 bigha and plot no. 1079/2, area 4 -1 -0 bigha has been shown vacant land although there was grove on these plots and further alleged sub division of plot 1079/1, 1079/2 has been incorrectly recorded and its valuation has been determined at the rate of 70 paisa. On this objection a report was called for from the Assistant Consolidation Officer, who submitted his report dated 21.1.2013 showing that notification in the village under Section 9 of the Act took place on 25.7.1991. He has also shown in the report the present position of the land in dispute. The matter was examined by the Consolidation Officer, who by order dated 30.5.2013 held that as old demarcation boundary of sub plots of plot no. 1079 is not found on the spot as such it is not possible to correct the various sub divisions of plot no. 1079 and in case the objection of the petitioner is entertained then the chaks of the various persons will be affected which is not possible after such a delay. The petitioner as well as one Brahmchandra filed appeals from the aforesaid order. Both the appeals were consolidated and decided by order of Settlement Officer, Consolidation dated 2.12.2013. The Settlement Officer, Consolidation held that as the land in dispute has already been partitioned between the co -sharers on the basis of compromise dated 28.11.1991 as such it would not be appropriate to reopen the order passed on the basis of compromise after such a long period. The petitioner filed revision from the aforesaid order, which has been dismissed by order dated 31.1.2014. Hence this writ petition has been filed.
(3.) THE counsel for the petitioner submits that even in CH Form 2 -A the land in dispute i.e. plot nos. 1079/2 and 1079/4 was recorded as grove of guava and therefore its valuation has been illegally determined and has been allotted in the chak of the petitioner. Since the land in dispute was the original holdings of the petitioner and the chak was allotted to him as such a time barred objection has been filed. As mentioned in the order of the Consolidation Officer the valuation of the grove land as well as the abadi land has not been determined by the order of the competent authority, as such, the entire proceeding relating to determination of valuation as well as allotment of this land in the chak of the petitioner was illegal.;