Salil Kumar Rai, J. - (1.) Heard Sri R.P. Yadav, counsel for the petitioner and Sri V.K. Chandel, Advocate representing respondent no. 4.
(2.) The facts of the case are that Plot No. 139/1 was the original holding of both petitioner and Ashwani Kumar and they had share in the same. Petitioner is chakdar no. 53 and Ashwani Kumar i.e. respondent no. 4 is chakdar no. 5. During the consolidation proceedings held in the village under the Uttar Pradesh Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as, 'Act, 1953), petitioner was allotted a chak by the Assistant Consolidation Officer consisting of Plot Nos. 139/1 and 133/3. It appears that respondent no. 4 was not allotted any chak on Plot No. 139/1. It is stated that Plot No. 139/1 is adjacent to road. Further, Plot Nos. 134, 135 and 136 which were also the original holding of respondent no. 4 were also adjacent to road. Aggrieved by the arrangement of chaks made at the stage of Assistant Consolidation Officer whereby he was not allotted any chak on Plot No. 139/1, respondent no. 4 filed objections before the Consolidation Officer and the Consolidation Officer vide his order dated 28.5.2008 withdrew Plot No. 139/1 allotted in the chak of petitioner and allotted a chak to respondent no. 4 i.e. Ashwani Kumar consisting of Plot No. 139/1. A perusal of the schedule appended to the order dated 28.5.2008 passed by the Consolidation Officer and annexed as Annexure CA-4 to the counter affidavit shows that by the aforesaid arrangement of chak, respondent no. 4 was allotted a chak consisting of Plot Nos. 134, 135, 136 and 139/1. Evidently, respondent no. 4 was allotted all the plots of his original holding which were adjacent to road. Aggrieved by the arrangement of chaks as made by the Consolidation Officer, the petitioner filed appeal before the Settlement Officer of Consolidation which was numbered as Appeal No. 1197. Respondent no. 4 also filed appeal which was numbered as Appeal No. 1209. The appeal was filed by the petitioner claiming a chak on Plot No. 139/1 and the appeal was filed by respondent no. 4 claiming that Plot Nos. 123 and 124 included in his chak be withdrawn and he may be allotted total area of Plot No. 139/1. The Settlement Officer of Consolidation vide his order dated 7.10.2008 dismissed Appeal No. 1209 filed by respondent no. 4. and partly allowed Appeal No. 1197 filed by the petitioner and allotted 0.171 decimal in Plot No. 139/1 to the petitioner after withdrawing an equivalent portion in the same from respondent no. 4. Dissatisfied with the arrangement of chak made by Settlement Officer of Consolidation, the petitioner as well as respondent no. 4 filed revision under Section 48 of the Act, 1953 before the Deputy Director of Consolidation registering Revision Nos. 1155 of 2008 and 1159 of 2008. The Deputy Director of Consolidation vide his order dated 6.10.2009 disposed of the aforesaid revisions and withdrew Plot No. 139/1 from the chak allotted to the petitioner and relegated him to the stage of the Consolidation Officer and added the aforesaid area of Plot no. 139/1 in the chak allotted to respondent no. 4. The order dated 6.10.2009 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation has been challenged in the present writ petition.
(3.) It has been contended by counsel for the petitioner that Plot No. 139/1 was adjacent to road and in view of the judgments of this Court delivered in Jaswant Singh vs. D.D.C., Banda & Others,2006 101 RevDec 207, Awadhesh Kumar & Ors. vs Director of Consolidation & Ors., 2014 122 RevDec 47, Smt. Chandra Jota & Ors. vs Deputy Director of Consolidation & Ors., 2007 103 RevDec 556 and Sanjay & Another vs Director of Consolidation & Ors.,2013 121 RevDec 561, the petitioner should have been allotted a chak on Plot No. 139/1 and the order dated 6.10.2009 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation withdrawing Plot No. 139/1 from the chak allotted to the petitioner is patently illegal and liable to be set-aside. Rebutting the arguments of counsel for the petitioner, Sri V.K. Chandel, counsel for respondent no. 4 has argued that the petitioner had merely 1/3 share in Plot No. 139/1 and by the arrangement of chak as made till the stage of Settlement Officer of Consolidation, the share of respondent no. 4 in Plot No. 139/1 was not included in the chak allotted to him and therefore the order dated 6.10.2009 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation is according to law in as much as it includes the share of respondent no. 4 in Plot No. 139/1 in the chak allotted to him.;