RAM SURAT RAM MAURYA, J. - (1.) HEARD Sri S.C. Tripathi, for the petitioner, and Sri D.K. Pandey, for the contesting respondents -2 to 4.
(2.) THE writ petition has been filed against the order of Deputy Director of Consolidation dated 19.11.2014 passed in chak allotment proceeding under U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act').
(3.) THE dispute between the parties is for allotment of chak on plot 144 of village Alishahpur, tahsil and district Jaunpur, which is original holding of respondents -2 to 4. The petitioner has filed CH Form -2 -A of plot 144, which shows that settlement area of plot 144 was 0.073 hectare. Out of which an area of 0.043 hectare was agricultural land and its valuation was determined and from the stage of Assistant Consolidation Officer, it was allotted in the chaks of respondents -2 to 4, while an area of 0.020 hectare was found as abadi and by the order of Consolidation Officer, dated 01.08.2013 it was directed to be recorded in the names of respondents -2 to 4. There is no whisper in respect of remaining area of 0.010 hectare, in CH Form -2 -A. Ram Bachan (chak -358) (the petitioner) filed a time barred objection (registered as case No. 100) under Section 20 of the Act, on 28.01.2014, claiming for allotment of plot 144 in his chak by deleting his chak on plots 151, 153 and 154 and shifting the chaks of respondents -2 to 4 on plots 140 and 141. The Consolidation Officer, by order dated 12.02.2014 allowed the objection of the petitioner, condoning delay and allotted plots 144 (area 0.059 hectare) and 146 (area 0.002 hectare) in chak of the petitioner and plots 151, 153 and 154, in the chaks of respondents -2 to 4. Mata Gulam (respondent -2) filed a time barred appeal (registered as Appeal No. 643), Arvind Kumar (respondent -3) filed a time barred appeal (registered as Appeal No. 644) and Ravindra Nath (respondent -4) filed a time barred appeal (registered as Appeal No. 645), from the aforesaid order. The appeals were heard by Settlement Officer Consolidation, who by separate orders dated 28.08.2014 held that the order of Consolidation Officer was based on compromise between the parties as plot 144 was near the abadi of Ram Bachan while plot 151 was near the abadi of respondents -2 to 4 as such no interference was required. On these findings, the appeals were dismissed.;