- (1.) S. P. Srivastava, J. Feeling aggrieved by an order passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation dismissing the revision of Ram Samuj, the petitioner, upholding the order passed by the Settlement Officer (Consolidation) in appeal whereunder plot No. 128 having a total area of 6 decimals had been ordered to be taken out of the consolidation scheme, the petitioner has now approached this Court seeking redress praying for the quashing of the appellate as well as revisional court order. During the pendency of the writ petition, learned counsel for the respondents had filed a supplementary affidavit annexing therewith the certified copy of the relevant chak map showing the position of plot No. 128 in dispute which has now been renumbered as plot No. 218.
(2.) I have heard Sri S. N. Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri S. N. Singh, learned Counsel representing the contesting respondent No. 3 and have perused the record. The plot No. 128 area 6 decimals in dispute stood recorded as the Bhumidhari holding of Shiv Nayak, respondent No. 3. The petitioner asserts that a portion of plot No. 128 in dispute having an area of. 3 decimals had been reserved for village Abadi and the remaining area of 3 decimals had been kept within the consolidation scheme. The provisional consolidation scheme wherein 1/2 area of plot No. 128 had been reserved for Abadi became final but during the proceedings under Section 20 of the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, the respondent No. 3 raised an objection praying that the entire plot No. 128 may be declared as chakout praying, therefore, that the area which had been kept within the consolidation scheme may be taken out from it. It is claimed that 1/2 area of plot No. 128 in dispute which had been kept within the consolidation scheme had been allotted in the chak of the petitioner and was situated in front of his house. The Consolidation Officer vide his judgment and order, dated 30- 1-79 rejected the objection of the respondent No. 3 seeking the taking out o4/2 of the area of plot No. 128 in dispute from the consolidation scheme on the ground that since the portion of the said plot in question was situated in front of the Sahan of Ram. Samuj the request made could not be accepted. In his objection filed under Section 9 of the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, Shiv Nayak, respondent No. 3 had asserted that plot No. 128 constituted his original holding wherein he had planted one Bel tree and was using the same for the purpose of Ghoor and Abadi according to his convenience. It was also indicated that his Ghoor, Bel and bamboo clumps stood on the plot which was also being used for tying his cattle and prayed that it should be kept out side the consolidation scheme. The Settlement Officer (Consolidation) inspected the plot indispute and found that the assertion of the contesting respondent that in the said plot the trees of Neem, Bel and Chilbil were standing was correct. He also found on his inspection that the plot had never been cultivated and was also being utilized as a Ghoor. However, no evidence was available showing that the said land was being utilised for tying the cattle. The Settlement Officer (Consolidation) on the spot inspection and considering the situation of the plot in dispute came to the conclusion that the aforesaid plot was not fit for being brought within the consolidation scheme and accordingly directed for its being taken out of the same.
(3.) THE order of the Settlement Officer (Consolidation) was upheld by the Deputy Director of Consolidation in revision. In his order of affirmance the Deputy Director of Consolidation endorsed the view of the Settlement Officer (Consolidation) that considering the situation of the plot in dispute it would not be proper to keep it within the consolidation scheme. It was also noticed that in the remarks column of the Khasra the plot in dispute had been shown to be Parti Kadeem and in this view of the matter it was not possible to fix its valuation. In support of this writ petition, the learned counsel for the petitioner has strenuously urged that the objection of the petitioner seeking the exclusion of the plot in dispute from the consolidation scheme was not entertainable at all in view of the bar contained in Section 11-A of the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act which provides that no question in respect of claims to land, partition of joint holdings and valuation of plots, trees, wells and other improvements were the question is sought to be raised by a tenure-holder of the plot or owner of the tree, well or other improvements recorded in the annual right registered under Section 10 relating to the consolidation area which might or ought to have been raised under Section 9 or which might or ought to have been raised under that section who has not been so raised shall be raised or heard at any subsequent stage of the consolidation proceedings.;