Manoj Kumar Gupta, J. - (1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned standing counsel for respondent nos. 1 to 3 and Shri B.R. Sharma for respondent no. 4. Pleadings have been exchanged between the parties and with their consent, the writ petition is heard finally.
(2.) The proceedings arise out of objections filed by the petitioner under Section 20 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953. The objection was primarily on the ground that the chak of the petitioner over gata no. 48 should be abolished and be merged with the chak over gata no. 154/2. The reason for making such a prayer was that the land of gata no. 48 was of a higher valuation (90 paise), while that of gata no. 154 was 50 paise. The case of the petitioner is that he is a small tenure holder and thus, in case he is allotted a chak over gata no. 154, the area of his holding will get enlarged. The objection filed by the petitioner along with large number of other objections filed by various other tenure holders of the village came to be decided by the Consolidation Officer by a common order dated 26.12.2012. The order of the Consolidation Officer does not discuss the objections filed by the petitioner nor by any other tenure holders but in the operative part, it is stated that all the objections shall stand allowed. Accordingly, the amendment chart has been prepared. However, the amendment chart that has been prepared does not indicate any alteration in the chaks proposed in favour of the petitioner at the stage of Assistant Consolidation Officer. The petitioner, therefore, felt aggrieved by the fact that the amendment chart does not reflect that the objection filed by the petitioner had been allowed. In the appeal, the petitioner who had 1/4 share in the joint holding did not implead his brother Basant, who was a co-sharer. He only impleaded the fourth respondent, who is his cousin and the other co-sharer having half share in the joint holding. The Settlement Officer, Consolidation dismissed the appeal holding that the petitioner as well as the fourth respondent have been allotted chaks according to the valuation of their respective shares. A specific finding has been recorded that the first chak of the petitioner over gata no. 48 has the valuation of 12.929 paisa whereas the second chak over gata no. 68/1 has the valuation of 7.38 paisa. The petitioner carried the matter in revision, which has been dismissed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation by impugned order dated 2nd July, 2015. Aggrieved, the petitioner has filed the instant writ petition.
(3.) It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the objection filed by the petitioner having been allowed by the Consolidation Officer, the amendment chart was not prepared accordingly, and consequently, the appeal ought to have been allowed. It is submitted that the Appellate Authority has wrongly entered into the issue whether there should have been alteration in the chaks allotted to the petitioner at the stage of Assistant Consolidation Officer inasmuch as, the objections filed by the petitioner stood already allowed by the Consolidation Officer.;