- (1.) KRISHNA Murari, J. Heard Sri L. P. Tiwari, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri Radhey Shyam, learned Counsel for the respondent No. 23.
(2.) THE undisputed facts are that in pursuance to an order of the Settlement Officer Consolidation dated 14-2-1966 a reference was prepared and forwarded to Deputy Director of Consolidation which was accepted by him on 21-12-1973. THE petitioner and other affected persons had no notice or knowledge of the said proceedings. THE order dated 21-12-1973 was recalled by the Deputy Director of Consolidation on 14-10-1981 on the application made by certain. Fresh notices were issued. In response thereto the petitioner and others filed objection. It was stated by the petitioner in his objection that after finalisation of chak allotment proceedings she has constructed a house, Nad, baithaka etc. over the area 1-0-10 of plot No. 912 which was allotted in her chak and the same is being used as abadi as such is not liable to be taken out from her chak. THE Deputy Director of Consolidation vide impugned order dated 20-12-1982 rejected the objection and again accepted the reference. It has been urged by learned Counsel for the petitioner that though the Deputy Director of Consolidation has noted the objection filed by the petitioner in the impugned judgment but has failed to consider the same. Sri Radhey Shayam appearing for respondent No. 23 has urged that the petitioner has transferred the area of plot No. 847 allotted in her chak in lieu of disputed area of plot No. 912 to one Smt. Hira Devi by means of registered sale-deed dated 3-6-1992 as such she is not entitled to challenge the order of Deputy Director of Consolidation.
(3.) A perusal of the impugned order goes to show that the Deputy Director of Consolidation has failed to consider the specific objection raised by the petitioner that she has made construction over the area of plot No. 912 allowed in her chak and the same is being used as abadi. Undisputedly, the allotment of chak in favour of the petitioner was finalised at the stage of Deputy Director of Consolidation in the year 1968. The reference proceedings were started in 1972. Changes or developments made by the petitioner on her chak were liable to considered by the Deputy Director of Consolidation while making adjustment in reference proceedings. However, the Deputy Director of Consolidation has wrongly and illegally accepted the reference without considering the objection of the petitioner. Thus, the impugned judgment of the Deputy Director of Consolidation cannot be sustained and is hereby quashed.;