JAGDEO Vs. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF CONSOLIDATION U P LUCKNOW CAMP

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition arises out of proceedings for allotment of Chaks. All the consolidation authorities have given judgments against the petitioner. Aggrieved by their judgments the petitioner has approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution.

(2.) THE only grievance of the petitioner before me is that his plots nos. 298, 299, 308, 310 and 311 are in the shape of grove and the authorities have not allotted any chak to the petitioner on the aforesaid plots nor have they excluded the aforesaid plots from the consolidation scheme. It has been vehemently argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the contention was raised before all the consolidation authorities to the effect that his above mentioned plots should have been made a chak but they have failed to address themselves to the contention raised on behalf of the petitioner.

(3.) IN the present case the petitioner claims his plots as a chak on the ground that there existed trees in such a number as to make them grove but when the aforesaid plots were not treated as grove and they were treated as cultivatory plots and their valuation was indicated in the records prepared under Section 8 of the Consolidation of Holdings Act it was the bounden duty of the petitioner to have filed objection under Section 9 of the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act. Since the petitioner was the tenure holder of the aforesaid plots and failed to raise objection regarding the valuation of the aforesaid plots, I think that the petitioner cannot be permitted to raise objection at the stage of proceedings under Section 20 of the UP. C.H. Act regarding the valuation of the aforesaid plots or treating them as grove so as to exclude them from consolidation scheme. To my mind even if the consolidation authorities have failed to address themselves to the contention raised on behalf of the petitioner, no prejudice has occurred to the petitioner because in law the petitioner could not raise the objection at the stage of Section 20 of the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act in view of the provisions contained in Sections 8, 9 and 11-A of the Consolidation of Holdings Act.