RAS BIHARI SINGH Vs. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF CONSOLIDATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Sri M.A. Siddiqui, learned Counsel for petitioner and Sri S.C. Sitapuri, learned Counsel for contesting respondent. C.O. passed the order on 28.2.2013 in Case Nos. 156 to 161, 154 to 160. Against the said orders, three appeals being Appeal Nos. 367, 368 and 369 were filed, two by Ban Bihari and one by Ras Bihari. S.O.C., Faizabad dismissed the appeals on 23.5.2013. Against the said order, Revision No. 1472/856 was filed by Ras Bihari and Revision No. 1293 was filed by Ban Bihari. First revision was dismissed by D.D.C. on 23.10.2013 and the second revision on 22.8.2013, hence this writ petition.

(2.) THE case of the petitioner in the first writ petition was that he had purchased agricultural land through registered sale -deed dated 28.4.1974 and order of mutation had also been passed in his favour on 30.11.1978., however the order of mutation was not carried out in the revenue record and after the death of the seller, the property was wrongly mutated in the name of his son and after the death of his son in the name of his son. Petitioner had filed objections before the C.O. During Chak carvation proceedings petitioner contended that either the chak carvation proceedings must be stayed or the plot in dispute should be allotted in the chak of the recorded tenure holder so that the same may be given to him in case his objections under section 9A(2) are allowed.

(3.) THERE is no provision under U.P.C.H. Act which prohibits exercise of chak carvation until each and every objection pertaining to title is decided. Moreover, several matters pertaining to title dispute decided by C.O., thereafter by S.O.C. and thereafter by D.D.C. are brought uptil High Court wherein writ petitions remain pending for years. It is not warranted that until each and every title matter has finally been decided, chak carvation exercise shall not be taken. If ultimately petitioner's title is upheld, the corresponding chak, which is allotted to the grand -son of the executant of the sale -deed will be given to the petitioner. As the grand -son is opposing petitioner's objection under section 9A(2), hence he is not expected to opt for less advantageous land just to harm the petitioner. Accordingly, I do not see any reason to direct to withhold the proceedings for chak carvation until final decision of petitioner's objection based on title. First writ petition is therefore dismissed.