- (1.) Heard Sri Ravindra Prakash Srivastava for the petitioner. The writ petition has been filed against the order of Deputy Director of Consolidation dated 9.7.2015, by which the revision filed by Ram Pher was allowed and the order of the Consolidation Officer dated 10.10.2014 and Settlement Officer, Consolidation dated 27.3.2015 were set aside and the matter has been remanded to the Consolidation Officer for deciding the case afresh on merit.
(2.) The Deputy Director of Consolidation in the impugned order found that plot nos.750 and 752 were recorded in khata no.154 of village Chamroha Siyarapar, tappa Haveli, pargana Basti East, tehsil and district Basti in the names of Mangaru son of Kashi Ram, Ram Pher, Ram Ujagir and Ram Autar, sons of Ram Asare and Badri son of Ram Das but the Consolidation Officer without issuing any notice to the recorded tenure holders passed the order dated 8.8.2014. This order was an ex parte order but the recall application filed by Ram Pher was rejected by the Consolidation Officer by order dated 10.10.2014. Ram Pher filed an appeal against the aforesaid order, which was dismissed by order dated 27.3.2015 passed by the Settlement Officer, Consolidation without examining the order dated 10.10.2014. On this finding, he set aside the orders of the Consolidation Officer dated 10.10.2014 and Settlement Officer, Consolidation dated 27.3.2015 and remanded the case to the Consolidation Officer to decide it afresh after giving opportunity of hearing to the parties. Hence, this writ petition has been filed. The counsel for the petitioner submits that there had been a partition between the cosharers of the joint holding by order dated 26.6.1996. The petitioner purchased the share of Mangaru through sale deed dated 31.10.2013. The land in dispute was lying in front of the house of the petitioner, which was useful for him as sahan land. Therefore, he got it reserved as general abadi and released it in his favour. The recorded tenure holders have not challenged the reservation of land as general abadi. Thus, they were not necessary party and only Gaon Sabha was the necessary party . Therefore, the order was passed by the Consolidation Officer with the consent of Gaon Sabha but the Deputy Director of Consolidation has illegally allowed the revision.
(3.) I have considered the arguments of the counsel for the petitioner. So far as the partition dated 26.6.1996 is concerned, it was in respect of plots other than the plots which were chak out. It has been stated in the revision that plot nos. 750 and 752 were grove land and were chak out. Thus, the consent was not in respect of these plots. The allegation in the revision was that although these plots were chak out but the Consolidation Officer had illegally reserved it for general abadi and thereafter released it in favour of the petitioner without any notice to the recorded tenure holders. Thus, there is factual controversy in the case, which can very well gone into and decided by the Consolidation Officer, on the basis of the evidence of the parties. In such circumstances, the order of the Deputy Director of Consolidation holding that the order of the Consolidation Officer was passed without giving opportunity of hearing to the recorded tenure holders and this order was not properly examined by the appellate court, does not suffer from any illegality. The petitioner has liberty to contest the case before the Consolidation Officer and no interference is required by this Court.;