Ram Surat Ram (Maurya), J. - (1.) HEARD Sri Jagdish Prasad Tripathi, for the petitioner. The writ petition has been filed against the order of Deputy Director of Consolidation dated 18.12.2014, passed in chak allotment proceeding under U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 -(hereinafter referred to as the Act).
(2.) DISPUTE between the parties is for allotment of chak in northern side on plot 74 of village Phulpur, tappa Kalwari, tahsil and district Basti. Plots 74 (area 0.550 hectare), 97 (area 0.120 hectare) and 99 (area 0.300 hectare) were original holdings of the petitioner and Chunni Lal (respondent -3), in which both of them were having 1/3 share each. Assistant Consolidation Officer proposed a single chak to the petitioner of 0.308 hectare in the northern side on plots 74 (area 0.263 hectare), 75 (area 0.044 hectare) and 69 (area 0.001 hectare), while respondent -3 was proposed two chaks, first chak on plot 74 in southern side and second chak on plot 209. Respondent -3 filed an objection (registered as Case No. 93) under section 20 of the Act, claiming for allotment of chak in northern side on plot 74, taking valuation of plot 209 also. Consolidation Officer, after hearing the parties, by order dated 14.2.2014, partly allowed the objection of respondent -3 and shifted the chak of respondent -3 in northern side. The petitioner filed a time barred appeal from the aforesaid order on 12.8.2014, in which State of U.P. alone was impleaded as the respondent. It is alleged that the appeal was allowed by order dated 21.10.2014, without issuing any notice to respondent -3 and without condoning the delay in filing the appeal and the order of Consolidation Officer' dated 14.2.2014 was set aside and chaks of the parties of the stage of Assistant Consolidation Officer was maintained. Respondent -3 filed a revision (registered as Revision No. 678) against the aforesaid order. The revision was heard by Deputy Director of Consolidation, who by order dated 18.12.2014, held that Settlement Officer Consolidation, without issuing any notice to respondent -3, allowed the appeal after hearing the petitioner only and disturbed the chak of respondent -3. At the time of spot inspection, the villagers, who were present on spot also stated that in family partition, respondent -3 was given his share in northern portion on plot 74. In such circumstances allotment of chak to the petitioner in northern portion of plot 74 was not proper. On these findings the revision was allowed and order of Settlement Officer Consolidation was set aside and order of Consolidation Officer was maintained. Hence this writ petition has been filed.
(3.) THE Counsel for the petitioner submits that plot 74 was the original holding of the petitioner and respondent -3. In family partition, the petitioner was given his share in northern portion on plot 74, which was verified by Assistant Consolidation Officer, as such the petitioner was proposed his chak on northern portion of plot 74. Consolidation Officer and Deputy Director of Consolidation without spot inspection disturbed the chak of the petitioner and allotted him southern portion, by a non -speaking order. Orders of Consolidation Officer and Deputy Director of Consolidation are illegal and liable to be set aside.;