Anjani Kumar Mishra, J. - (1.) HEARD Shri B. Malik, learned Counsel for the petitioners and Shri S.K. Tyagi, for the respondents. The petitioners have filed this writ petition challenging an order dated 1.8.1984 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Meerut in reference No. 488 under section 48(3) of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act.
(2.) THE dispute in the writ petition pertains to plot No. 623 which was the original holding of the respondent. It has been submitted by Shri B. Malik that the plot No. 623 had been allotted to the petitioners in chak allotment proceedings. They were put in possession over the same and the allotment became final in view of section 30 of the Act. Thereafter an application was alleged of Amir Hasan on 6.12.1978 stating therein that he had lost in title proceedings and, therefore, there was surplus land in his chak and this surplus portion be excluded from the sahan portion of the chak allotted to the petitioners. It is further contended that the consolidation operations came to a close on issuance of notification under section 52 of the Act on 1.5.1979. In view of the sub -section (a) and (b) of section 30, the petitioners acquired a vested right in plot No. 623 and could not have been disturbed as has been done by the impugned order. He has stated that it is not clear as to how the proceedings started and the proceedings can at best be proceedings under section 42 -A of the Act. This provision is only for correction of arithmetical errors. In such proceedings, an order modifying the chaks of the parties cannot be passed. In any case, the proceedings appear to have been initiated on the application of Amir Hasan and the petitioners were not party thereto.
(3.) THE last submission made is that the contesting respondent is a transferee and has no vested right to the land in question and for this reason also the impugned order which allots plot No. 623 to him is illegal. The impugned order is also illegal inasmuch as it does not consider the case of the petitioners that the bachat land which has been proposed to them by the impugned order, is not vacant on the spot, having being allotted to third parties by the Gaon Sabha and, therefore, the petitioners cannot get possession over the same.;