Ram Surat Ram (Maurya), J. - (1.) HEARD Sri B.L. Mishra for the petitioners and Sri Vijay Bahadur Verma for respondent -3. The writ petition has been filed against the order of Deputy Director of Consolidation dated 27.5.2011 passed in chak allotment proceeding under U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953.
(2.) PLOT Nos. 400 and 596 were the original holdings of the petitioners and their co -sharers. Two of the co -sharers were proposed chaks on plot No. 400 and two of the co -shares were proposed chak on plot No. 596. No one filed any objection against the proposed chaks of the petitioners as such their chaks were confirmed. However, Smt. Shiv Kumari purchased a share in plot No. 596 from other co -sharer of the petitioners. By an earlier order of Deputy Director of Consolidation dated 27.1.2011 Smt. Shiv Kumari was allotted chak on plot Nos. 389 and 390, etc. She filed a writ petition Consolidation No. 159 of 2011 in which she had demanded chak on plot Nos. 596 and 511, claiming her original holding, while Deputy Director of Consolidation has allotted uran chak to her on plot Nos. 389, 390 and 391. On this ground the writ petition was allowed and the matter was remanded to the Deputy Director of Consolidation for fresh decision on merit After remand the Deputy Director of Consolidation by the impugned order dated 26.5.2011 found that plot No. 510 was the original holding of Bindeshwari Prasad which was the road side land. Therefore, this plot has been wrongly allotted in the chak of Smt. Shiv Kumari. Accordingly, it was found that plot No. 510 was liable to be allotted in the chak of Bindeshwari Prasad. While Smt. Shiv Kumari, who was allotted chak on plot No. 510 was allotted chak on plot No. 596, disturbed the chaks of Israil and Zuber, the petitioners.. Hence, this writ petition has been filed by Israil and Zuber.
(3.) THE Counsel for the petitioners submits that plot No. 596 was the original holding of Israil and Zuber and their two other co -sharers having their total 1/2 share jointly. Two of the co -sharers were allotted chaks on other original holding on plot No. 400 while Zuber and Israil were allotted chaks on plot No. 596. No one has filed any objection against the proposed chaks of the petitioners and their chaks have been confirmed. However, the Deputy Director of Consolidation has illegally disturbed their chaks. He submits that some area of plot No. 596 was allotted in the chak of Smt. Patna Devi as uran chak on this place. In case Smt. Shiv Kumari was claiming her original holding on plot No. 596 chak of Smt. Patna Devi was liable to be disturbed and not the chaks of the petitioners. The order of the Deputy Director of Consolidation disturbing the chaks of the petitioners is illegal.;