ASHOK BHUSHAN, J. - (1.) HEARD Sri Krishan Ji Khare learned Counsel for the petitioners and Sri R.S. Misra appearing for the respondents.
(2.) BY this writ petition the petitioners have prayed for quashing the order dated 25.3.2006 passed by the Settlement Officer of Consolidation and the order dated 3.7.2006 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation. The writ petition arises out of the proceedings Under Section 9 -B of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act , 1953. An objection was filed by the petitioners Under Section 9 -B claiming that the chak road be carved out in plots No. 125 and 126 belonging to the contesting respondents after valuing the same. The Consolidation Officer allowed the objection and valued part of both the plots as 90 paisa and carved out a chak road of three meters wide in both the plots. Appeal was filed both by respondents No. 7 to 9 and respondents No. 3 to 6 challenging the order of the Consolidation Officer. It was stated in the appeal that no notice of objection was received by the appellants and the order passed by the Consolidation Officer is ex parte. It was further stated that the plots No. 125 and 126 are chak out plots of the appellants in which they have their trees and Abadi. The Settlement Officer of Consolidation held spot inspection and after spot inspection allowed both the appeals vide order dated 25.3.2006. Two revisions were filed by the petitioners before the Deputy Director of Consolidation which, too, have been dismissed by the judgement and order dated 3.7.2006. This writ petition has been filed challenging the orders passed by the Settlement Officer of Consolidation and the Deputy Director of Consolidation. Learned Counsel for the petitioners contended that the chak road was rightly given by the Consolidation Officer. He contended that there is no other chak road from which the petitioners can go out from the village Abadi and reach the approach road. He contended that the view of the Deputy Director of Consolidation that the chak road cannot be given for the benefit of an individual tenure hodler, is not correct. He placed reliance on the judgement of this Court reported in 2006 (100) R.D. 682 Asha Ram Misra and Ors. v. Joint Director of Consolidation, Allahabad and Anr. Learned Counsel for the petitioners has also placed reliance on a chak map filed as Annexure -R. A. 1 tot he rejoinder affidavit.
(3.) SRI R.S. Misra, learned Counsel for the contesting respondents refuting the contention of the petitioners' counsel contended that there is already two 'Rastas' for the villagers to out from the village Abadi and reach the approach road. He contended that one chak road is in plat No. 122 and another in plot No. 128. Sri R.S. Misra has also referred to chak map filed along with the counter affidavit as Annoxure -CA -2. Learned Counsel for the contesting respondents submitted that there being already chak road for coming out from the village Abadi, other chak road for giving benefit to one family i.e. the petitioners, cannot be granted. Sri Misra placed reliance on the judgement of the apex Court reported in 2000(91) R.D. 225 Ramanand v. Deputy Director of Consolidation and Ors. Sri Misra further contended that no notice was given to the petitioner by the Consolidation Officer and the order of the Consolidation Officer was in fact ex parte. He contended that the Consolidation Officer has wrongly observed that the prayer of the petitioners has not been opposed by the tenure holders.;