LAL CHAND Vs. D.D.C.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri Krishna Bahadur, learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the respondents. This writ petition arises out of proceedings for allotment of chaks and seeks quashing of the orders dated 22.09.2003 and 19.03.2005 passed by the Assistant Settlement Officer Consolidation, Ghazipur and the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Ghazipur, respectively.

(2.) The petitioner No.1 is the holder of Chak No.396 and the petitioner No.2 is the holder of Chak No.153 carved out in the name of her deceased husband, Dharm Narain. At the appellate stage, the petitioner no.1 and the predecessor -in -interest of the petitioner no.2 filed an appeal challenging the order passed by the Consolidation Officer. Their contention was that plot Nos.236 and 237 were their original holdings consisting of very high quality land, situated near that Abadi. Although, they had been proposed a chak over these plots yet the allotment was inappropriate considering that the respondent in the appeal, namely Kinnoo, respondent no.4, had been allotted an Uran Chak over these plots. With a view to allot the petitioners chak abuting the road, the Settlement Officer Consolidation allowed the appeal, disturbing the respondent no.4.

(3.) Aggrieved by this order, the respondent no.4 preferred a revision which has been allowed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation on the finding that the revisionist, opposite party no.4 in the writ petition, had been allotted a very narrow strip of land 1 1/2 Lattha wide and about 150 Lattha long, which was unfit for cultivation. This chak had been allotted to the revisionists with a view to allot a chak to the petitioners abutting the road and near their Abadi. In this regard, a categorical finding has been returned by the Deputy Director of Consolidation that the petitioners are not possessed of any house in the village and that they are residents of another village. A specific reference to the entries contained in CH Form - 2A of the petitioners has also been made. For the foregoing reasons, the revision of the respondent no.4 was allowed and the appellate order, set aside. It further appears that the petitioners filed a revision, being revision No.535, which was dismissed, again on the finding that the petitioners have no house in plot Nos.236 and 237 or in the vicinity and they are residents of another village. An additional observation has been made that an appeal filed by the petitioners was still pending. This was an additional ground for dismissing the revision.