Ram Surat Ram (Maurya), J. - (1.) HEARD Sri U.P. Singh for the petitioners and Sri R.N. Yadav for the respondents. The writ petition has been filed against the order of Deputy Director of Consolidation dated 9.1.2015 passed in chak allotment proceeding under UP Consolidation of Holdings Act.
(2.) THE dispute between the parties is in respect of allotment of chak on plot No. 286 which was the original holding of respondents 2 to 4. From the stage of Assistant Consolidation Officer, the petitioners were allotted chak on plot No. 286. Respondents - 2 to 4 filed an objection under section 20 of the Act claiming for allotment of chak on plot No. 286. The Consolidation Officer by the order dated 13.12.2013 found that plot No. 286 situated in the middle of the abadi and is surrounded by the original holdings of the petitioners therefore it has been allotted in the chak of the petitioners. In lieu of it respondents - 2 to 4 were allotted chak on plot No. 293 in the eastern side which is also a road side land and as such no prejudice has been caused to them. Accordingly the objection has been dismissed. Respondents -2 to 4 filed an appeal from the aforesaid order. The Settlement Officer Consolidation by the order dated 28.2.2014 again recorded the finding that plot No. 286 is surrounded with the original holding of the petitioners and therefore it was allotted in their chak. So far as the chak of respondents - 2 to 4 was concerned, they were allotted chak on the road side land as such there is no grievance to them. Accordingly the appeal was dismissed. Thereafter respondents - 2 to 4 filed a revision against the aforesaid order. It may be mentioned that there was another chak appeal filed by Shyam Lal which was decided by Settlement Officer Consolidation by separate order dated 6.3.2014. The petitioners filed a revision against the order dated 6.3.2014. Respondents - 2 to 4 filed a revision against the order dated 28.4.2014 and there were other chak revisions also of the village. All the revisions were consolidated and decided by the Deputy Director of Consolidation who by the order dated 9.1.2015 found that so far as plot No. 286 was concerned, this plot was the original holding of respondents - 2 to 4 and land situated by the side of the road as well as in the side of abadi therefore it was valuable land and ought to have been allotted to respondents - 2 to 4. Respondents - 2 to 4 have been illegally deprived from their original holding. So far as the petitioners are concerned, it has been found that plot No. 636 was the original holding of the petitioners and this plot was left as bachat land accordingly the excess area of the chak of the petitioners has to be adjusted on plot Nos. 636 and 637. Accordingly the revisions were allowed and the chaks of the parties were affected. Hence this writ petition has been filed. The Counsel for the petitioners submits that by the order of Deputy Director of Consolidation, the petitioners have been allotted four chaks which is against the principle of UP Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953. The chaks of the petitioners were multi corner chak and it were not in rectangular shape. He further submits that Consolidation Officer and Settlement Officer Consolidation has categorically found that plot No. 286 situated in middle of original holding of the petitioners. Accordingly, plot No. 286 was allotted in the chak of the petitioners. It has been further found that respondents - 2 to 4 were allotted chak on plot No. 293/2 which is also situated on the road side and having equal valuation of land therefore no prejudice has been caused to respondents - 2 to 4. He further submits that in plot No. 286 the share of respondents - 2 to 4 was only 0.029 hectare however in lieu of it they were allotted chak by the Deputy Director of Consolidation of the area of 0.136 hectare. Thus undue benefit has been given to respondents - 2 to 4. The petitioners have specifically raised a ground that they have been allotted chak of the valuation of 100 paisa land while his maximum original holding was valued as the rate of 50 to 80 paisa therefore the area has been substantially reduced but the Deputy Director of Consolidation has not considered the grievance of the petitioners in this respect. The order of Deputy Director of Consolidation is illegal and liable to be set aside.
(3.) I have considered the arguments of the Counsel for the parties and examined the records.;