Ram Surat Ram, J. - (1.) HEARD Sri Rishi Kant Rai for the petitioner and Sri V.P. Gupta for the contesting respondent. The writ petition has been filed against the order of Deputy Director of Consolidation dated 23.1.2015 allowing the revision of respondent -2 and the order dated 11.2.2015 dismissing the recall application of the petitioner filed against the aforesaid order.
(2.) THE main dispute between the parties is in respect of allotment of chak on plot No. 223. The petitioner along with her sons were the co -sharer in plot No. 223 having 1/4 share while Ghanshyam, respondent -2 has also having 1/4 share in it. Virendra Singh, respondent -3 was also having 1/4 share in it. However in consolidation the chak of the petitioner was separately carved out and she along with her sons was allotted separate chaks. Chak number of the petitioner was 196 while chak No. of Ghanshyam, respondent -2 was 74. The Assistant Consolidation Officer has proposed a second chak to the petitioner on plot No. 223 of an area of 0.324 hectare. Similarly the Assistant Consolidation Officer proposed a chak to Ghanshyam, respondent -2 on plot No. 267 etc. Ghanshyam filed an objection under section 20 of UP Consolidation of Holdings Act claiming for allotment of chak on plot No. 223. Initially the chak objection of Ghanshyam was consolidated along with chak objection Nos. 681, 682, 684 and 685 which was decided by the order of Consolidation Officer dated 16.8.2013 in which the Consolidation Officer has allotted chak to Ghanshyam of an area 0.588 hectare on plot No. 223 on the basis of compromise. However by this order the chak of the petitioner was not disturbed. It is alleged by the petitioner that she had already filed a separate objection under section 20 of the Act on 11.6.2013 but the chak objection of the petitioner was not decided along with other chak objections of the village. After the order dated 16.8.2013 the petitioner filed an application before the Consolidation Officer for recalling the order dated 16.8.2013 alleging that the order dated 16.8.2013 is an ex parte order. A perusal of the application dated 26.8.2013 shows that the petitioner has nowhere mentioned in this application that she has filed a separate objection under section 20 of the Act. The compromise is filed as Annexure -6 to the writ petition. A perusal of the compromise shows that in the compromise application filed in the case of Ramwati v. State, case number has not been mentioned nor date of filing of the compromise has been mentioned. On this compromise thumb impression of Ramwati Devi and Ghanshyam had been affixed which were not verified by any advocate and the Counsel appearing for them. Ghanshyam has denied the thumb impression of Ghanshyam and his argument is that although thumb impression of Ramwati is wider than thumb impression of Ghanshyam which appears that it is apparent forgery has been committed. The petitioner has further filed the order sheet of Case No. 676 Ghanshyam Singh v. State of UP in which on the basis of compromise the order dated 16.8.2013 was recalled and the case was restored to its original number and the order sheet is alleged to have been signed by Savindra son of Ghanshyam, respondent -2 on his behalf. Thereafter case was decided on 3.9.2013. The judgment of the Consolidation Officer dated 3.9.2013 has been filed as Annexure -8 to the writ petition which shows that it was consolidated judgment in Case No. 676 (Ghanshyam Singh v. State of UP) and Case No. 683 (Ramwati v. State of UP). By the order of Consolidation Officer dated 16.8.2013 chak of Ghanshyam was slightly modified inasmuch as southern portion of the chak of Ramwati was allotted in the chak of Ghanshyam and in lieu of it northern portion has been allotted in the chak of Ramwati. Due to which the chak of Ghanshyam has become 'L' shape on the spot. Thereafter Ghanshyam filed a time barred appeal against the order dated 16.8.2013 in which he has alleged that the chak as allotted to him on plot No. .223 was in 'L' shape as such his chak be carved out in rectangular form. The appeal was heard by the Settlement Officer Consolidation who by the order dated 30.5.2014 dismissed the appeal. A perusal of the appellate order shows that even in the appellate order it has nowhere mentioned that on the basis of compromise the order dated 16.8.2013 was recalled and a fresh order was passed on 3.9.2013 thereafter Ghanshyam Singh filed a revision against the aforesaid order. The revision was allowed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation by order dated 23.1.2015 and Deputy Director of Consolidation has held that chak of Ghanshyam Singh was carved out in 'L' shape which was not proper accordingly he carved out a chak to Ghanshyam and Ramwati in rectangular form. Thereafter the petitioner filed an application for recall of the order dated 23.1.2015 on the ground that the order of Consolidation Officer dated 27.8.2013 and 3.9.2013 were passed on the basis of compromise and that order has not been challenged by Ghanshyam Singh anywhere. The appeal was filed against the order dated 16.8.2013 although in the appeal the allegation has been made that chak of respondent -2 was made in 'L' shape which was made only on the basis of order dated 3.9.2013 as such Ghanshyam Singh had knowledge of the compromise as well as the orders dated 27.8.2013 and 3.9.2013 from the very beginning even then he had not challenged these orders in appeal. Since these orders were passed on the basis of compromise as such the Deputy Director of Consolidation has illegally allowed the revision and chak, which was carved out on the basis of compromise, has been disturbed. The recall application was heard by the Deputy Director of Consolidation who by the order dated 11.2.2015 held that as the Consolidation Officer has already decided the objection of Ghanshyam Singh by order dated 16.8.2013 as such subsequent proceeding before him was illegal and without jurisdiction and he has dismissed the recall application. Hence this writ petition has been filed. The Counsel for the petitioner submits that orders dated 27.8.2013 and 3.9.2013 passed by the Consolidation Officer was not challenged by Ghanshyam Singh. Although in the memorandum of appeal it has been alleged that chak of Ghanshyam Singh was carved out in 'L' shape which has become only after the order dated 3.9.2013. In such circumstances Ghanshyam Singh was having knowledge of the compromise as well as the orders dated 27.8.2013 and 3.9.2013 but he did not challenge the aforesaid orders in the appeal. Since the aforesaid orders were based upon compromise therefore it could not have been set aside by the Deputy Director of Consolidation in exercise of revisional jurisdiction although in the revision also these orders were not challenged. He further submits that petitioner was co -sharer of plot No. 223/2 and petitioner along with her sons were having 1/4 share in it and according to their share petitioner and her sons were entitled for chak of 1/4 share but she was allotted only an area of 0.324 hectare on plot No. 223. This was a road side land as such it is valuable in such circumstances before the Consolidation Officer the parties entered into the compromise and pitch road which has turned in the northern side from the house of Ghanshyam Singh as such the petitioner's chak towards western side and width of the chak of the petitioner was enhanced in the northern side. The chak of the petitioner and respondent -2 remain at the same place due to which no prejudice has been caused to respondent -2 and in such circumstances the Deputy Director of Consolidation should not have exercised the revisional jurisdiction to disturb the chak of the petitioner.
(3.) I have considered the arguments of the Counsel for the parties and examined the records. The allegation that the chak objection of the petitioner remain undecided and therefore she filed an application for recall of the order dated 16.8.2013 which has been allowed on the basis of compromise between the parties, does not appears to be supported with the allegations made in the recall application. In the recall application the petitioner has nowhere mentioned that she had also filed an objection under section 20 of the Act which has not been decided along with other objections of the village. The only allegation was made that order was ex -parte. Although by order dated 16.8.2013 the chak of the petitioner was not disturbed as such she cannot be said to be aggrieved by the order dated 16.8.2013. Respondent -2 clearly denied of filing the compromise and the allegation that his thumb impression has been forged, the compromise was filed in the case of Ramwati v. State of UP while case of Ghanshyam v. State of UP was restored by the order dated 27.8.2013, although in that case there was no compromise. The Deputy Director of Consolidation has made the shape of the chak of Ghanshyam Singh in rectangular form. The allegation of the petitioner that width of chak of the petitioner is 25 meter which comes approximately 80 feet and on the spot such a width cannot be said to be uncultivable. Otherwise also in the eastern side as well as in the northern side of the chak of the petitioner same chak road continues. Only pitch road is finished upto the house of respondent -2 thus on the basis of pitch road no much advantage is going to be acquired by the petitioner. In such circumstances no interference is required by this Court, the writ petition is dismissed.;