Ram Surat Ram (Maurya), J. - (1.) Heard Sri M.P. Singh Gaur for the petitioner. The writ petition has been filed against the orders of Consolidation Officer dated 6.5.2015, Settlement Officer, Consolidation dated 16.6.2015 and Deputy Director of Consolidation dated 1.7.2015. By the order of the Consolidation Officer an area of 1.20 acre of plot No. 10/2M and an area of 1.00 acre of plot No. 564/4M has been directed to be deleted from khata of the petitioner and was recorded as banjar and usar land. The consolidation authorities found that plot No. 2M, area 0.09 acre, plot No. 10/2M, area 1.70 acre and plot No. 564/4M area 1.50 acre was recorded in the name of petitioner since 1383 fasli. Although area of plot No. 10/2M was 0.50 acre but in its place the area was recorded as 1.70 acre i.e. an excess area of 1.20 acre was recorded in plot No. 10/2M. Similarly, the area of plot No. 564/4M was 0.50 acre but in its place the area was recorded as 1.50 acre i.e. an excess area of 1.00 acre was recorded in this plot. Thus, the excess area recorded in the chak of the petitioner was liable to be deleted. On being satisfied with the report of Tehsildar dated 28.4.2015 the Consolidation Officer by order dated 6.5.2015 directed for deleting the excess area of 1.20 acre from plot No. 10/2M and 1.00 acre from plot No. 564M and recording these areas in khatas of bajar and usar respectively. The appeal as well as revision filed by the petitioner have been dismissed.
(2.) The Counsel for the petitioner submits that the name of the petitioner was recorded over the land in dispute on the basis of patta since 1383 fasli. Tehsildar in his report has found that record relating to 1368 fasli was not available. Thus without looking to the record the report has been submitted for deleting the area of khata of the petitioner. The Consolidation Officer has also not given an opportunity of hearing and directed to delete the area from khata of the petitioner. The report of Tehsildar is based on no evidence and the order of Consolidation Officer has been passed without giving opportunity of, hearing to the petitioner even then the appeal as well as revision filed by the petitioner have been dismissed. Hence, this writ petition has been filed.
(3.) I have considered the arguments of the Counsel for the petitioner. A perusal of the report of Tehsildar shows that plot Nos. 2M, 10/2M and 564M were recorded in the name of the petitioner in 1383 fasli and the record relating to allotment of the year 1383 fasli was available, which was examined by Tehsildar as mentioned in the report dated 28.4.2015. On the basis of which it has been specifically held that area of 0.50 acre of plot No. 10/2M and an area of 0.50 acre of plot No. 564/4M was allotted to the petitioner. However, in place of it an area of 1.70 acre of plot No. 10/2M and an area of 1.50 acre of plot No. 564/4M was recorded in the name of the petitioner. This finding could not be challenged by the petitioner inasmuch as petitioner has not filed patta before this Court. In the absence of rebuttal of this finding, no interference is required by this Court. The writ petition has no merit and it is dismissed.;