RAM SURAT RAM MAURYA, J. - (1.) HEARD Sri V.S. Kushwaha, for the petitioner and Dr. Akhilesh Kumar Sharma, for the contesting respondent -5. The counsel for respondent -5 does not propose to file Counter Affidavit. With the consent of the parties, writ petition is decided finally.
(2.) THIS writ petition has been filed against the orders of Consolidation Officer dated 10.10.2002, Settlement Officer Consolidation dated 20.11.2006 and Deputy Director of Consolidation dated 28.11.2014 passed in the proceeding under Section 42 -A of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as the Act).
(3.) EARLIER dispute arose between the parties in respect of the area of plot 1090 of village Jagner, tahsil Kheragarh, district Agra. Plot 1090 (area 1 -0 -0 bigha) was original holding of Hukum Singh (father of the petitioner). Admittedly an area of 0 -11 -0 bigha of plot 1090 was acquired for construction of road and an area of 0 -5 -0 bigha was sold by Hukum Singh through various sale deeds executed by him in favour of Purushottam and others. During partal, for revision of the map, area of plot 1090 was shown as bigger than its settlement area in the revised map. Similarly 0 -11 -0 bigha of plot 1090 was recorded as road, 0 -5 -0 bigha of plot 1090 was recorded in the names of Purushottam and others, transferee of Hukum Singh and 0 -8 -0 bigha of plot 1090 was recorded in the name of Hukum Singh during partal in CH Form -2 -A. As total area of plot 1090 had become 1 -4 -0 bigha as such a dispute in respect of excess area was noted in CH Form -4. Assistant Consolidation Officer by order dated 15.11.1983 decided the dispute in terms of compromise and maintained partal entry of CH Form -2 -A. Sita Ram (respondent -5) filed an appeal (registered as Appeal No. 588/467/1990 -91) from the aforesaid order of Assistant Consolidation Officer. The appeal was allowed by order of Settlement Officer Consolidation, dated 07.02.1996 and the order of Assistant Consolidation Officer dated 15.11.1983 was set aside and the matter was remanded to Consolidation Officer for decision on merit, after giving opportunity of evidence/hearing to the parties. After remand, Sita Ram filed an objection (registered as Case No. 719 of 1997 -98) under Section 9 -A (2) of the Act and has stated that during partal/survey, area of plot 1090 was found as 0 -19 -0 bigha only. However, in CH Form -2 -A, an area of 0 -11 -0 bigha of plot 1090 was recorded as road, 0 -5 -0 bigha of plot 1090 was recorded in the names of Purushottam and others, transferee of Hukum Singh and 0 -8 -0 bigha of plot 1090 was recorded in the name of Hukum Singh. Thus total area of plot 1090 has become 1 -4 -0 bigha. Similarly, in revised map, its area has also shown bigger than its area as shown in previous settlement map, due to which area of plots 1091, 1092, 1093, 1094, 1095, 1096, 1097, 1098, 1099, 1100, 1728 and 1729 were affected and shown shorter than its area as shown in previous settlement map. As such area of plot 1090 in CH Form -2 -A and in revised map be corrected. The Consolidation Officer by order dated 02.07.1998 held that area of plot 1090 has not been shown in CH Form -2 -A and in revised map according to survey sheet, accordingly revised map was directed to be corrected and area of 1 -0 -0 bigha of plot 1090 as recorded in previous settlement has been maintained. Sita Ram filed an application under Section 42 -A, before Consolidation Officer, which was rejected by order dated 25.02.1999.;