- (1.) Notice on behalf of respondents-1 and 2 has been accepted by Chief Standing Counsel and on behalf of respondent-3 to 6 has been accepted by Sri Yogesh Kumar Singh. It has been stated that respondents-7 to 10 are not interested person in this matter as such they are proforma party. The counsel for the contesting respondents does not propose to file any counter-affidavit and with the consent of the parties the writ petition is decided finally. Heard Sri Ramesh Pundir for the petitioners and Sri K.R. Sirohi, Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Yogesh Kumar Singh for respondents-3 to 6. The writ petition has been filed against the order of Settlement Officer Consolidation dated 20.5.2011 and Deputy Director of Consolidation dated 30.8.2014 passed in the proceeding under Section 9B of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'.).
(2.) The dispute relates determination of valuation of plot No. 1179 area 0.3000 hectare of village Budhana Tehsil Budhana, Distt. Muzaffar Nagar. Admittedly the land in dispute was the original holding of the petitioners and their co-sharers. The village was notified under Section 9 of the Act on 30.9.1993 and under Section 20 of the Act on 20.12.2007. The petitioners filed an application under Section 9(2) of the Act along with delay condonation application on 17.1.2008 for deleting the valuation of plot No. 1179 area 0.3000 hectare on the ground that land in dispute was consisting grove as well as boring of the petitioner accordingly the determination of valuation of this plot was illegal. On the objection of the petitioner the Consolidator has submitted a report dated 12.2.2008 in which he has mentioned that there has been 13 trees of Mango, 5 trees of Adu and 5 trees of Guava and he has also installed a tube well over the land in dispute. The Consolidation Officer by the order dated 18.2.2008 condoned the delay in filing the objection and allowed the objection and directed to delete the valuation of plot No. 1179 area 0.3000 hectare. Against the aforesaid order respondents-3 to 6 filed an appeal before the Settlement Officer Consolidation. As the land in dispute was proposed in their chak as such the petitioners raised an objection regarding the maintainability of the appeal however it appears that the objection filed by the petitioners regarding the maintainability of the appeal remained undecided and in the meantime the Settlement Officer Consolidation inspected the spot on 26.3.2011 and thereafter allowed the appeal by order dated 20.5.2011 holding that the land in dispute was agricultural land and no grove was found on it at the time of spot inspection. The petitioners filed a revision against the aforesaid order which has been dismissed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation by order dated 30.8.2014. The Deputy Director of Consolidation also relied upon the observation of Settlement Officer Consolidation regarding his spot inspection as well as the report of Consolidator dated 12.2.2008. Hence this writ petition has been filed.
(3.) The counsel for the petitioners submits that so far as the report of Consolidator dated 12.2.2008 is concerned, it is clearly mentioned the existence of 13 trees of Mango, 5 trees of Adu and 5 trees of Guava as well as installation of pumping set. So far as the spot inspection is made by the Settlement Officer Consolidation is concerned, it has not been kept on record and thus it cannot be said that whether the Settlement Officer Consolidation has actually found any grove on the spot and no reliance can be placed on the observation made in this respect in the judgment of Settlement Officer Consolidation. He submits that the notification under Section 9 of the Act in the village was made on 30.9.1993 but the notification under Section 20 was made on 20.12.2008 and since the chaks were not carved out and the petitioners were through out remained in possession over the land in dispute and the petitioners being a rustic villager could not know about the entry made during partal in CH Form 2 A therefore the objection under Section 9(2) could not be filed within time but as the provisional consolidation scheme itself was not made till December 2007 as such this was the sufficient cause for condoning the delay and delay in filing the objection was condoned by the Consolidation Officer and he relied upon the report of the Consolidator dated 12.2.2008 and deleted the valuation of the land in dispute. The order of Consolidation Officer was not liable to be set aside by the Settlement Officer Consolidation.;