Ram Surat Ram (Maurya), J. - (1.) HEARD Sri Brajesh Shukla for the petitioner and Sri Ramesh Chandra Tiwari for the contesting respondents. The writ petition has been filed against the order of the Deputy Director of Consolidation dated 12.1.2015 recalling the order dated 12.11.2013 and the order dated 23.2.2015 dismissing the revision of the petitioner.
(2.) THE dispute between the parties is in respect of allotment of chak on plot Nos. 861. Plot Nos. 861, 863, 864, 865 were the original holding of Shiv Charan in which he was having 1/6 share. It may be mentioned here that plot No. 785, area 0.100 hectare and plot No. 786, area 0.100 hectare were also the original holding of Shiv Charan. However, Assistant Consolidation Officer proposed a single chak to Shiv Charan on plot No. 785 etc. of the area 0.766 hectare. It is alleged by the petitioner that the petitioner was allotted chak on plot No. 861 etc. from the stage of Assistant Consolidation Officer. The village was notified under section 20 of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") but no objection was filed by Shiv Charan against the proposed chak of the petitioner. Accordingly, the provisional consolidation scheme was approved and the petitioner was handed over possession in June, 2012. Thereafter a time barred objection was filed by Shiv Charan claiming for allotment of chak on plot No. 863 etc. on 29.9.2012. The objection of Shiv Charan was dismissed by the Consolidation Officer by order dated 15.5.2013. Shiv Charan filed an appeal, against the aforesaid order, which was allowed by the Settlement Officer, Consolidation by order dated 15.7.2013 and Shiv Charan was allotted chak on plot No. 863 etc. of his entire holding. The order of Settlement Officer, Consolidation dated 15.7.2013 was challenged by the petitioner in revision along with a delay condonation application. It is alleged that the revision was allowed by Deputy Director of Consolidation by order dated 12.11.2013 after hearing the parties. Thereafter on behalf of Shiv Charan an application was filed for recall of the order dated 12.11.2013, in which he had stated that notice had not been issued to him of the revision and his advocate was regularly practicing at tehsil headquarters at Hasanpur when in the revision date was fixed for hearing at Amroha and in his absence the revision was decided ex parte by order dated 12.11.2013. The recall application was heard by Deputy Director of Consolidation, who by order dated 12.1.2015 recalled the order dated 12.11.2013 and thereafter after hearing the parties on merit dismissed the revision by order dated 23.2.2015. Hence this writ petition has been filed.
(3.) THE Counsel for the petitioner submits that the village was notified under section 20 of the Act on 25.2.2011 and within 15 days the objection was required to be filed but no objection was filed by Shiv Charan and the chak of the petitioner as proposed to him has been confirmed. After confirmation of the chak delivery of possession had also taken place in June, 2012 and thereafter although time barred objection filed by Shiv Charan was accepted but rightly dismissed by the Consolidation Officer. However, the Settlement Officer, Consolidation has illegally allowed the appeal of Shiv Charan without noticing the fact that objection of Shiv Charan was not filed within time and chak had already been confirmed under section 20 of the Act. The Settlement Officer, Consolidation further did not notice that the petitioner had planted several eucalyptus trees over the land in dispute and without awarding any compensation or taking into consideration the plantation made by the petitioner, the appeal was allowed. When the matter was heard by the Deputy Director of Consolidation, he in his order dated 12.11.2013 had found that the chak of the petitioner on plot No. 863 etc. was where his source of irrigation existed as well as the plantation has also been done by the petitioner but by order of the Settlement Officer, Consolidation, the chak of the petitioner has been illegally disturbed. Accordingly, the order of Settlement Officer, Consolidation was set aside and the chak of the petitioner on plot No. 860 etc. was restored. He submits that order dated 12.11.2013 was not the ex parte order and it was passed after hearing the parties. Although it is alleged that summons were not issued in revision but Sri Shiv Raj Singh Rana had filed vakalatnama on behalf of Shiv Charan on 21.9.2013 and after hearing his arguments the order dated 12.11.2013 was passed. In the circumstances, the Deputy Director of Consolidation had no jurisdiction to recall his order dated 12.11.2013 and the order dated 12.01.2015 recalling the aforesaid order is an illegal order and amounts to review of the order dated 12.11.2013. The revision was subsequently dismissed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation without taking into consideration that Shiv Charan has committed a long delay in filing objection under section 20 of the Act and without considering the fact that the petitioner made plantation over the land in dispute.;