- (1.) ASHOK Bhushan, J. Heard Counsel for the parties.
(2.) THESE two writ petitions having been filed against the same orders of Deputy Director of Consolidation and the Settlement Officer of Consolidation, have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment The petitioners by these writ petitions have prayed for quashing the order dated 25th November, 2004 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation dis missing the revision filed by the petitioners against the order dated 10th Septem ber, 2004 passed by Settlement Officer of Consolidation. The facts of Writ Peti tion No. 253 of 2005 are being noted for deciding both the writ petitions. Brief facts of the case necessary for deciding the writ petitions are; during consolidation proceedings, the petitioner was allotted Chak No. 30, respondent No. 3 was allotted chak No. 246, respondent No. 4 was allotted chak No. 187 and respondent No. 5 was allotted Chak No. 186. The petitioner as well as respon dents No. 3, 4 and 5 were original tenure holder of Plot No. 267 area 1. 800, Plot No. 93 area 0. 170 and Plot No. 243 area 0. 0221 The chaks were proposed by the Assistant Consolidation Officer. An objection was filed by respondent No. 5 under Section 21 (1) of the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 claiming that she should be allotted chak over Plot No. 243, which is her original holding. On objec tion of respondent No. 5 Case No. 63 was registered. The Consolidation Officer decided all the objections including the Objection No. 63 by order dated 9lh Feb ruary, 2004. The objection of respondent No. 5 was allowed. An appeal was filed by respondents No. 3 and 4 before the Settlement Officer of Consolidation being Appeal No. 44 (Smt Shanti Devi v. Sobharam and others) and Appeal No. 48 (Smt Rajbaliv. Ratan Devi and others ). The Settlement Officer of Consolidation by order dated 10th September, 2004 decided the appeals. The Settlement Officer of Consolidation allowed the appeals. The Settlement Officer of Consolidation reduced the valuation of Plot No. 267 from 80 paisa to 60 paisa and amended the Chak Nos. 30, 186, 187 and 246. A revision was filed by the petitioner, which has been dismissed by the impugned order.
(3.) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner challenging the order, contended that the order of Settlement Officer of Consolidation reducing the valuation of Plot No. 267 was wholly illegal. He further contends that no objections were filed regarding valuation of Plot No. 267. The observation made by Settlement Officer of Consoli dation that parties agreed for change of valuation was incorrect. Learned Counsel appearing for respondents No. 3, 4 and 5 contended that valuation of Plot No. 267 to the extent of 60 paisa for some portion was rightly fixed since it was infertile. It was contended that valuation of some portion of Plot No. 267 has been reduced. Learned Counsel has supported the order of Settle ment Officer of Consolidation as well as the Deputy Director of Consolidation.;