- (1.) Heard Sri M.D. Singh Shekhar, Senior Counsel, assisted by Sri Ashwini Kumar Srivastava, for the petitioners and Sri Akhilesh Chandra Shukla as well as Sri Suneet Rai for the respondents.
(2.) The writ petition has been filed against the orders of Consolidation Officer dated 6.8.2011, Settlement Officer, Consolidation dated 25.11.2011 and Deputy director of Consolidation dated 15.5.2012 passed in chak allotment proceeding under U.P. consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953(hereinafter referred to as 'the Act')
(3.) It is admitted that plot no.663 was the original holding of Ramzan from whom the petitioners have purchased an area of about 6-0-0 bigha while plot nos. 675 and 676 were the original holding of Ajay Veer (respondent-5). Initially the petitioners were proposed a chak (chak no.172) on plot no.662/2, 663/1, 663/2, 663/3,663/4, 663/5 and 663/5M. Ajay Veer filed his objection under Section 20 of the Act for allotment of chak on his original holding. Consolidation Officer by order dated 29.3.2008 dismissed the objection of Ajay Veer. Ajay Veer thereafter filed an appeal (registered as Appeal No.158 of 2008) before Settlement Officer, Consolidation and demanded his chak on plot nos. 671, 672, 673, 674 and 675. Settlement Officer, Consolidation by order dated 30.4.2008 allowed the appeal of Ajay Veer and allotted his chak on plot no.671 etc. taking it from the chak of Ramzan and Ramzan was allotted chak on plot no.666 etc. In this allotment chaks of Vijai Pal, Asha Ram, Bhagwandeen and Ajai Kumar were disturbed but they are not in contest thereafter. Ramzan challenged the order of Settlement officer, Consolidation in revision. The revision was heard by Deputy Director of Consolidation, who by order dated 19.2.2009 allowed the revision and again allotted chak to Ajay Veer on plot no.666 etc. and allotted plot no.670 etc. in the chak of Ramzan in which chak of Vijai Pal was also modified. Ajay Veer thereafter filed Writ B No.15413 of 2009. In this writ petition Ajay Veer had only impleaded Ramzan as contesting respondent-2 while respondent-1 was Deputy Director of Consolidation. No other chak holder was impleaded as respondent. The writ petition was heard by this Court and this Court by judgment dated 4.4.2011 held that both the parties were claiming their original holding in their chaks. However, by the impugned order the original holdings were not allotted in the chaks of the parties. Therefore, this Court set aside the orders of Consolidation Officer, Settlement Officer, Consolidation and Deputy Director of Consolidation and remanded the matter to Consolidation Officer to consider the grievance of Ajay Veer and Ramzan for allotment of their chak on their original holdings on plot no.676 and 663 respectively. After remand the case was decided by Consolidation Officer. Before Consolidation Officer Ramzan argued that while allotting chak to him he was given chak in the back portion on plot no.663 and was not given chak adjoining chak road. Consolidation Officer after hearing the parties by order dated 6.8.2011 allowed the objection of Ramzan and allotted chak to Ramzan on plot no.663 etc. taking it from the chak of respondent-5 as well as from the chak of the petitioners and the petitioners were substantially allotted chak on plot no.664 etc. It may be mentioned here that the land, which was deducted from the chak of the petitioners were valued at the rate of 40 paisa, 50 paisa and 70 paisa, while the petitioners were allotted chak on the land valued at the rate of 50 paisa and 70 paisa. Due to allotment of high valuation land, area of the chak of the petitioners was substantially reduced inasmuch as area of 0.847 hectare was taken from their chak and they were allotted an area of 0.585 hectare. Although plot nos. 662 and 663 were original holdings of the petitioners but their chak was substantially allotted on plot nos. 664 and 665. The petitioners challenged the aforesaid order in appeal. The appeal was heard by Settlement Officer, Consolidation, who by order dated 25.11.2011 dismissed the appeal. The petitioners filed a revision against the aforesaid order, which was dismissed by Deputy Director of Consolidation by order dated 15.5.2012. Hence, this writ petition has been filed.;