Anjani Kumar Mishra, J. - (1.) HEARD Shri R.C. Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri V.K. Singh for the respondents 3, 4 and 5 and learned Standing Counsel for the State -respondents.
(2.) WITH the consent of the parties, the matter has been heard and is being finally decided at the admission stage itself, as counter and rejoinder affidavits have already been exchanged and it has further been submitted that the dispute in the writ petition is primarily between the petitioners and the respondents 3, 4 and 5. Respondent No. 2 is son of Ram Dhani but he has no concern in the matter inasmuch as his father Ram Dhani had executed a sale -deed of the plot in question in favour of the respondents. The writ petition is directed against an order dated 19.08.2015 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation in a reference under Section 48(3) of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act. This reference was prepared to correct the errors detected in the revenue records while preparing the final record. The reference was prepared and forwarded because plot Nos. 2019, 2018 and 2017 was proposed in the chak of chak holder No. 753 but were situated outside the chak. The other mistake was that there was a double entry as regards plot No. 2018 in chak No. 155. The reference further stated that correction of these errors would effect chak holder Nos. 753, 152, 1330/5, 722 bachat and chak road.
(3.) THE dispute in the writ petition is with regard to plot No. 2018 which was the original holding of chak holder No. 1552 Ram Dhani. The total area of this plot is stated to be 0.82 while an area of 0.08 was reserved for road and the remaining .74 was included in the consolidation operations.;