- (1.) Heard Shri Tripathi B.G. Bhai, learned counsel for the petitioners and Shri Anil Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the respondents.
(2.) The dispute in all the three writ petitions relates to the same plots and is between the same parties and the orders challenged in all the three writ petitions are similar, therefore, the same were connected and have been heard together and are being decided by a common order.
(3.) The dispute between the parties relates to Plot Nos. 48M, 49/4, 50/3 and 52M. Against the order dated 11.11.1986 passed by the Consolidation Officer, the respondents filed Appeal Nos. 08, 1014 and 1015 under Section 11(1) of the Uttar Pradesh Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as, 'Act, 1953'). All the three appeals were connected and heard together by the Settlement Officer of Consolidation, Siddharth Nagar (hereinafter referred to as, 'S.O.C.'). The grievance of the respondents in the appeals was that the aforesaid plots were their grove, and therefore, should have been chucked out from the consolidation operations and further the respondents were not allotted a chak in proportion to their share in Plot No. 48. The S.O.C. made a spot inspection and after considering the basic year records, C.H. Form 2A and C.H. Form 23 as well as different maps, in his order dated 10.10.2011 recorded a finding that Plot Nos. 49, 50 and 51 were reserved for pathway during the consolidation operations and a road runs through Plot No. 52/5 and, therefore, it would not be possible to chuck out the aforesaid plots at the instance of the respondents. In his order dated 10.10.2011, the S.O.C. also recorded a finding that Plot Nos. 49/2 and 49/3 had already been chucked out by the Consolidation Officer because they were grove and the part of Plot No. 52 which was grove had been chucked out from the consolidation operations, but the part of Plot No. 52 which was being used for agricultural purposes was included in the consolidation operations. In view of his aforesaid findings, the S.O.C. held that it would not be appropriate to chuck out Plot Nos. 49, 50 and 52 etc. from the consolidation operations. So far as Plot No. 48 was concerned, the S.O.C. in his order dated 10.10.2011 recorded a finding that the petitioners had already been allotted three chaks and any alterations in the allotment of chaks in regard to Plot No. 48 as sought by the respondents, would result in allotment of four chaks to the petitioners, which could not be done by the S.O.C. Apart from the aforesaid, in his order dated 10.10.2011 the S.O.C. also recorded a finding that notification under Section 52 of the Act, 1953 had already been issued and the parties had settled on the chaks allotted to them, therefore, the boundaries of Plot No. 48 as they existed before the delivery of possession under Section 28 of the Act, 1953 had been disturbed and, thus, it was not feasible to alter the allotment of chaks or to verify the exact area of Plot No. 48. On the aforesaid findings, the S.O.C. vide his order dated 10.10.2011 dismissed the appeals filed by the respondents.;