S.N.Srivastava, J. - (1.) Challenge in this petition is to the order dated 6.5.2003 passed by Deputy Director, Consolidation whereby revision was dismissed and the order passed by appellate authority dated 14.12.2002 was affirmed by which the appellate authority had rejected the restoration application preferred against an order dated 6.8.2002 passed in Appeal No. 175/636.
(2.) The facts beyond the pale of dispute are that in the previous consolidation proceeding, the land in dispute i.e. plot No. 61 admeasuring 0.51 acre was recorded in the revenue record as play ground -a Gaon Sabha property. From a perusal of Khatauni 1380 Fasli, it would appear that the said land has been recorded in the name of Zia-UI-Uloom Higher Secondary School ostensibly pursuant to order dated 25.7.1975 stated to have been passed by Sub Divisional officer. However, copy of the order aforesaid is not available on record and it finds mention in Khatauni only. It would further appear from the record that pursuant to notification under Section 4(i) of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, the consolidation proceeding commenced and the land in dispute, which was being used by the petitioner for growing crops, after being valued was included in consolidation Scheme. It further transpires from the record that the land in dispute was recorded in Khatauni as property of petitioner since 1383 Fasli and in consolidation, the value of plot in question was pegged at 60 paise and petitioner got chak admeasuring 207 hectares in exchange ratio to the land in dispute on plot Nos. 247, 240, 234, and 246/1 while the land in dispute was allotted in chak of opposite party. Dissatisfied with this arrangement, the petitioner filed objection under Section 21 of the U.P.C.H. Act for allotment of land in dispute in its chak which came to be rejected vide order dated 26.12.2001 and the revision preferred by petitioner also came to be dismissed.
(3.) Learned Counsel for the petitioner canvassed that the authorities below erred in law in declining allotment of land in dispute in plot No. 61 in petitioner's chak or in the alternative, in refusing to set apart the land in dispute as chak-out i.e. beyond the purview of consolidation scheme and further that the order refusing to interfere in the matter of allotment of plot No. 61 in the chak of the petitioner is tainted with the error of law and fact. Per contra, learned Counsel appearing for Opposite parties contended that it was at the instance of the petitioner that the land in dispute was subsumed in the proceeding for allotment of chak; that the petitioner got another chak in exchange ratio of plot No. 61 and in allotment proceeding the land out of plots 247, 240, 234, and 246/1 was allotted in petitioner's chak No. 4. Lastly it was submitted that the impugned orders allotting land in dispute to respondent's chak was rightly passed.;