- (1.) This writ petition has been listed in the listing of infructuous matters. The noting of the ADJ Jalaun, Orai has performed. The matter cannot be said to have infructuous. Status quo has been granted by this Court which was continued from 2002 till today. There is an application for vacating the same filed by Shri S.K.Misra, learned counsel for the respondents. However, in the revised list, Shri S.K.Misra has remained absent and has not assisted the Court.
(2.) I have heard Shri Madhusudan Dixit, learned counsel for the petitioner at length. The main contention raised in the writ petition are : The order of the first appellate authority dated 3.8.2001 wherein the appeal preferred by respondent nos. 2 to 6 was rejected by a well reasoned order. After a period of about nine months, the Revisional Authority up turn the order of the Settlement Officer of Consolidation. Several objections were raised by the petitioner namely one that the revision was belated. He had alleged that Chak was carved in the stage of Assistant Consolidation Officer and the appeal filed by therespondent nos. 2 to 6 was dismissed with a finding that the adjoining land valued at the same rate and valuation of the plot in dispute would not be revised. The revisional authority set aside this well reasoned order without deciding whether it was reserved for Bachat land and the revisional authority passing the order dated 24.6.2002 in plot dis regard to the factual scenario and the grievance raised by the petitioner. This petition whereby the authorities were directed to maintain status quo will have to be accepted. The operation of the order dated 24.6.2002 is already stayed. The said order is quashed and set aside. The order of the First Appellate Authority is upheld by this Court in this regard. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that when an appeal was filed by the contesting respondents nos.2 to 6 for changing the valuation of the plot no.1935 i.e from 100 paisa to 80 paisa then the Settlement Officer of Consolidation after considering the appeal came to the conclusion that the value of plot no.1935 is correct and considering the adjoining plots, which are valued at the same value as the plot no.1935 as such the demand of the respondent nos.2 to 6 cannot be accepted. The Settlement Officer of Consolidation after looking the spot and the entire evidence on record as well as the entire documents on record came to a conclusion that the demand of the respondents cannot be accepted as such he dismissed the appeal filed by the respondents 2 to 6 vide order dated 3.8.2001.
(3.) Hence this petition is allowed. No order as to costs.;