- (1.) HEARD Sri Pradeep Kumar Singh for the petitioner.
(2.) THE writ petitioner has been filed against the orders of Settlement Officer Consolidation dated 18.4.2012 and the Deputy Director of Consolidation dated 23.11.2013 passed in the proceeding under Section 9 of UP Consolidation of Holdings Act.
(3.) AGAINST the statement of principle prepared as well as confirmed by the order of Consolidation Officer dated 3.5.2010 passed in Case No. 16, Bhiyan filed an appeal under Section 11 of the Act. The appeal was heard by Settlement Officer Consolidation who by the impugned order has deleted the land reserved for extension of Harijan abadi, Ambedkar Park,? mainure pit , Holika Dahan land? on plot no. 681 and land reserved for Khalihan on plot no. 1072 and according to the resolution of Land Management Committee the Ambedkar Park was shifted on plot no. 3224, mainure pit was shifted on plot no. 1442 and plot no. 1444 and land for Harijan abadi was reserved on plot no. 1480. The revision filed by the petitioner against the aforesaid order has been dismissed. The only contention of the counsel for the petitioner is that the appeal was filed by one Bhaiyan without any resolution of Land Management Committee therefore the appeal was not maintainable and was liable to be dismissed as held by Division Bench of this Court in Babu Ram Vs. Sub Divisional Officer and others, 1996 2 AWC 1035 and Pyare Lal Vs. Deputy Director of Consolidation, 2005 98 RevDec 106. So far as the law laid down by the Division Bench of this Court as well as learned Single Judge is concerned, in these cases the point was whether the Pradhan was competent to engage a private counsel for filing of the writ petition other than the penal lawyers. Only the provision of Paragraph 131 of Gaon Samaj Manual was interpreted by this Court which provide that except with the previous permission of Sub Divisional Officer on the resolution of Land Management Committee, the Pradhan was not competent to engage any private counsel and the writ petition filed by private counsel was not maintainable. In this case the there is no question of filing of the writ petition. The appeal was filed by the Pradhan. Section 126 A (3) of UP Act No.1 of 1951 authorities the Pradhan to file an appeal and prosecute it. Once the appeal has been filed statement of principle can be changed by the Settlement Officer Consolidation in consultation with the Members of Consolidation Committee. In this case the resolution has been passed for changing the statement of principle on which the order has been passed by the Settlement Officer Consolidation.;