- (1.)Heard the counsel for the petitioners, the counsel for respondent no. 3 and the Standing Counsel representing respondent nos. 1 and 2.
(2.)The facts of the case as evident from the records annexed with the writ petition are that one Heeralal was the recorded tenure holder of Plot No. 243. During the consolidation operations in the village, it was directed that 0.07 acres in Plot No. 243 be withdrawn from Heeralal and be recorded as Canal while 0.03 acres be recorded as abadi and therefore vest in the Gaon Sabha. However, it appears that subsequently 0.01 acres of Plot No. 243 was included in chak No. 68, i.e., the chak of the petitioners. It also appears that because of the inclusion of Plot No. 243 in chak No. 68, the road used by the villagers was obstructed causing inconvenience to the villagers. Consequently, on an application of respondent no. 3, reference proceedings under Section 48(3) of the Uttar Pradesh Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 were instituted on which after giving the concerned parties an opportunity of hearing, a reference was submitted before the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Padrauna, i.e., respondent no. 1 and Reference No. 14/479 was registered before respondent no. 1. The respondent no. 1 after considering the records passed order dated 24.1.1996 holding that Plot No. 243 was wrongly included in chak No. 68, i.e., the chak of the petitioners and because of the said fact, the road used by the villagers was closed causing inconvenience to the villagers. The Deputy Director of Consolidation vide his order dated 24.1.1996 directed that Plot Nos. 242 and 243 included in chak No. 68 be withdrawn from the same and in lieu thereof Plot No. 171 be included in chak No. 68.
(3.)The petitioners filed a recall application before respondent no. 1 registering Recall Case No. 388 before respondent no. 1. The recall application was filed on the ground that after Plot Nos. 242 and 243 were included in chak No. 68, the petitioners had constructed their house over the same after obtaining permission from the Settlement Officer of Consolidation and therefore the order dated 24.1.1996 be recalled. The Deputy Director of Consolidation vide his order dated 13.5.1997 dismissed Recall Case No. 388 on the ground that the petitioners did not produce any order passed by the Settlement Officer of Consolidation permitting the petitioners to make constructions over chak No. 68 which at that time included Plot Nos. 242 and 243 and, therefore, the plea of the petitioners cannot be accepted. The orders dated 24.1.1996 and 13.5.1997 passed by respondent no. 1 have been challenged in the present writ petition.