RAM SURAT RAM (MAURYA), J. - (1.) HEARD Sri A.K. Sharma holding brief of Sri Manish Dev for the petitioner and Sri S.N. Singh for the respondents.
(2.) THE writ petition has been filed against the orders of Consolidation Officer dated 20.2.2013, Settlement Officer, Consolidation dated 7.10.2013 and Deputy Director of Consolidation dated 21.1.2014 passed in chak allotment proceedings. From the stage of Assistant Consolidation Officer, the petitioner was proposed two chaks, first chak was proposed on plot no. 291 and 293 etc, out of which plot no. 291 was the original holding of the petitioner and second chak was proposed on plot no. 1073 etc in the vitinity of his original holding on plot no. 1069 and 1086. The petitioner filed an objection against the proposed chaks and claimed for allotment of single chak. The Consolidation Officer found that the petitioner is a small tenure holder, as such, allotment of single chak to the petitioner will be in consonance of the principle of consolidation. However, in the amendment chart attached to the order of Consolidation Officer dated 20.3.2013, the second chak of the petitioner has been disturbed and in its place, the petitioner was allotted chak on plot no. 635 and 683 etc, out of which plot no. 635 was the original holding of the petitioner. The petitioner filed an appeal from the aforesaid order before the appellate court in which the petitioner has raised grievance for allotment of single chak on plot no. 1088 or in alternative, his first chak be abolished and its valuation be allotted on plot no. 1088. It has been alleged by the petitioner that he is having boring as well as planted trees on plot no. 1088. The appeal was heard by Settlement Officer, Consolidation who by order dated 7.10.2013 held that the petitioner is allotted a single chak on plot no. 1088 then it will disturbed the chak of the various other chak holders. It was also observed that plot no. 1088 was not the original holding of the petitioner. On this finding the appeal of the petitioner was dismissed. The petitioner filed a revision from the aforesaid order which has been dismissed by Deputy Director of Consolidation by the impugned order dated 21.1.2014. The Deputy Director of Consolidation found that the claim of the petitioner that his boring and trees are existing on plot no. 1088 is not substantiated from the entry in CH Form 2 A and he refused to exercise the revisional jurisdiction. Hence this writ petition has been filed.
(3.) THE counsel for the petitioner submits that the Consolidation Officer although recorded a finding that a single chak be allotted to the petitioner but in the amendment chart attached to the order of Consolidation Officer, only the second chak of the petitioner was abolished and its valuation has been allotted on plot no. 635 etc. The Settlement Officer, Consolidation has illegally remarked that plot no. 1088 was not the original holding of the petitioner and the Deputy Director of Consolidation has not accepted the case of the petitioner that his boring as well as trees were existed on plot no. 1088, only on the ground that in CH Form 2 A, the boring and trees were not noted. He submits that all the three consolidation authorities have dealt with the case of the petitioner in casual manner and without application of mind. In such circumstances, the orders of consolidation authorities are liable to be set aside.;