RAM SURAT RAM (MAURYA),J. - (1.) HEARD Sri Namwar Singh, for the petitioners and Sri K.K. Mani, for the respondents.
(2.) THIS writ petition has been filed against the orders of Consolidation Officer dated 17.06.2008, Settlement Officer Consolidation dated 15.11.2010 and Deputy Director of Consolidation dated 07.08.2013 and 07.11.2013 in chak allotment proceedings under U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act,1953 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The dispute is in respect of allotment of chak on plot 582/1 of village Koirajpur pargana Athgawa, district Varanasi, which is a roadside land. There were several co - sharers in plot no. 582. In the share of the petitioners an area of 0.032 hectare was falling. They executed a sale deed of this land in favour of Abhay Maha Vidyalaya, Tarna, Varanasi (respondent -5). At the time of preparation of Statement of Principle this land was valued at the rate of 50 paisa. No one filed any objection against the determination of valuation of this plot. Thereafter it was allotted in the chak of Salik Ram (respondent -4). The petitioners were proposed three chaks namely first chak was proposed on plots 478 etc. of an area of 0.095 hectare, second chak was proposed on plots 560 etc. of an area of 0.226 hectare and third chak was proposed on plots 520 etc. of an area of 0.180 hectare. The petitioner filed an objection (registered as Case No. 234) under Section 21 of the Act for allotment of the chak on plot 582/1. The Consolidation Officer heard the objection of the petitioners and also made spot inspection and found that all the three chaks of the petitioners were allotted either on their original holdings or in the vicinity of the original holdings as such the chak of the petitioners can not be disturbed. On these findings the objection was dismissed by order dated 17.06.2008.
(3.) THE petitioners filed a time barred appeal (registered as Appeal No. 177/85) along with delay condonation application on 12.05.2010 from the aforesaid order of Consolidation Officer. In the appeal, the petitioners stated that although they had sold the land in dispute to respondents -5 but in a part of it they had constructed one tin shed room and a hut and some portion of it was agricultural land. The transferee of the petitioners have given his consent for allotment of this land in the chak of the petitioners. This plot is a roadside land as such has commercial value and liable to be allotted in the chak of the petitioners. The appeals was heard by Settlement Officer Consolidation, who by order dated 15.11.2010, found that although there was one tin shed room in the land in dispute but this construction was not raised with previous permission of Settlement Officer Consolidation. The petitioners had already sold the land in dispute as such it was no more their original holdings. There was nothing on record to show that respondent -5 had given consent for allotment of chak to the petitioners on this plot. Plot 584 was original holdings of respondent -4 as such he was rightly allotted chak on plot 584 taking some area of 582/1 also. The petitioners were allotted three chaks either on their original holdings or in the vicinity of the original holdings as it was not appropriate to allot a fourth chak to the petitioners. On these findings the appeals was dismissed by order dated 15.11.2010.;