Ram Surat Ram (Maurya), J. - (1.) Heard Sri B.K. Singh, for the petitioner, Sri Anurag Narain and Sri Gauri Shankar Maurya, for the contesting respondent -2. The writ petition has been filed against the order of Deputy Director of Consolidation dated 10.12.2010, passed in chak allotment proceeding under U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act').
(2.) Plots 914 (area 2 -5 -0 bigha), 1105/1 (area 0 -8 -0 bigha), 1105/2 (area 0 -3 -0 bigha), 1105/3 (area 0 -7 -0 bigha), 1115/1 (area 0 -2 -0 bigha), 1115/2 (area 0 -1 -0 bigha) and 1115/3 (area 0 -3 -0 bigha) (total area 3 -9 -0 bigha) were original holdings of Smt. Manjauka (now represented by respondent -2). Plots 914 (area 2 -5 -0 bigha) was left as chak -out and remaining plots of Smt. Manjauka of an area of 1 -4 -0 bigha were included in consolidation area and in lieu of it, she was allotted single chak of an area of 0 -12 -7 bigha on plot 1334, which was original holding of the petitioner and his co -sharers. An objection (i.e. Case No. 1499) was filed under Sec. 20 of the Act, which was decided by Consolidation Officer, by order dated 12.6.1965. Thereafter, an appeal (registered as Appeal No. 265), was also filed, which was decided by order of Settlement Officer Consolidation, dated 6.7.1975, in which chak of the petitioner was affected.
(3.) Smt. Manjauka filed a time barred objection (registered as Case No. 3164) under Sec. 21 of the Act. Consolidation Officer, by order dated 2.12.1978 held that chak of Smt. Manjauka had already been affected by orders of Consolidation Officer, dated 12.6.1965 and Settlement Officer Consolidation dated 6.7.1975 as such delay in filing of objection was not liable to be condoned. On this ground objection was dismissed as time barred. Smt. Manjauka filed a time barred revision (registered as Revision No. 856) against the aforesaid orders, on 30.1.1979, along with delay condonation application. Deputy Director of Consolidation, by order dated 12.5.2003, allowed the revision, by which chak of the petitioner was disturbed. The petitioner filed a writ petition (registered as Writ Petition No. 1227 (Consolidation) of 2003) which was allowed by this Court, by order dated 22.9.2004 on the ground that the petitioner was not given notice/opportunity of hearing in the revision.;