- (1.) S. U. Khan, J. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.
(2.) THIS writ petition was earlier allowed by me on 20-4-2006 without hearing any one on behalf of respondents as no one had appeared. Thereafter re-hearing application was filed on behalf of contesting respondents which was allowed on 9-2-2007 and judgment and order dated 20-4-2006 was set aside. Thereafter arguments of learned Counsel for both the parties were heard on merit of the writ petition on 11-5-2007 and judgment was reserved. Land, even though entered as agricultural land in the revenue record but having abadi/commercial potential belonging to different parties of this writ petition was disturbed and allotted to other persons (for interchanged between petitioners and respondents) by the consolidation authorities giving rise to this writ petition. Valuation of land having abadi/commercial potential cannot be determined categorically in accordance with the formula provided therefore under U. P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act and the rules framed thereunder hence it is always advisable/fairly essential that such type of land shall not be disturbed in consolidation proceedings and it shall be left with the person whose original holding it is and who has got a previous right of holding the same. The purpose of consolidation is to consolidate the agricultural lands and not abadi or commercial lands. If an agricultural land is used for abadi or commercial purposes, a certificate to that effect under Section 143 of U. P. Z. A. and L. R. Act may be obtained by the tenure-holder concerned. However, it is not necessary to obtain such certificate. For using the agricultural land for abadi or commercial purposes no prior permission is necessary. Moreover even if a particular piece of land is not actually being used for abadi still it may have abadi potential due to its nearness to abadi. Even if agriculture is being actually done on such land till it will have abadi potential and is likely to fetch at least ten times consideration if sold than an equal area of land which has got only and only agricultural potential.
(3.) THE main dispute in this writ petition is about plot Nos. 193 and 193/361. This writ petition arises out of second consolidation proceedings. After the conclusion of first consolidation proceedings plot No. 193 was bifurcated into two plots i. e. 193 area 2. 051 acres and 193/361 area 0. 439 acres. Petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 i. e. Smt. Chandra Jota and Smt. Kalawati purchased an area of 0. 230 acres of plot No. 193 which belonged to Banshu. Normally such a small area is purchased for abadi purposes and not for agricultural purposes. Moreover it is admitted to both the parties that said plot is situate just adjacent to the abadi and also near the road. This position is also clear from the map brought on record through supplementary counter-affidavit filed on 14-3-2007, duplicate copy of which was supplied on the date on which arguments were heard. This writ petition is directed against order passed by Deputy Director of Consolidation, Azamgarh on 28-2-1989. Through the said order several revisions were decided. Petitioners are aggrieved only by that part of the judgment which was given in respect of revision No. 700, Harish Chandra & Ors. v. Ramayan & Ors. and Revision No. 701, Banshu & Ors. v. Jhangatu & Ors. Banshu and Harish Chandra are respondent Nos. 2 and 3 in this revision. The Consolidation Officer and Settlement Officer Consolidation had allotted no part of plot No. 193 to Banshu and Harish Chandra as it was not their original holding. Dy. Director of Consolidation allotted plot No. 193 to Banshu and Harish Chandra.;