Court No. - 9
Case :- WRIT - B No. - 5491 of 2018 Petitioner :- Chunna And 2 Others Respondent :- The Deputy Director Of Consolidation And 98 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Om Prakash Chaube,Shravan Kumar Mishra Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Anil Kumar Pandey
Hon'ble Anjani Kumar Mishra,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Anil Kumar Pandey, who has filed caveat on behalf of respondent Nos. 4 to 7, although he has made an endorsement of having received copy of the writ petition also on behalf of the respondent No. 8.
The writ petition arises out of proceedings under Section 9-A (2) of the UP Consolidation of Holdings Act.
In the basic year record, the land in issue was recorded in the name of Raj Kumar son of Bihari. The objection was filed with regard to plot Nos. 4753 area 23 decimal, 4568 area 10 decimal, 4595 area 20 decimal and 4631 area1.01 decimal. The objection was filed by Lochan, the predecessor-in- interest of respondents 5 to 7 claiming to be recorded as sirdar over the plots in question as he was in possession. During partal, one Chunna was found to be unauthorized occupation.
The Consolidation Officer vide order dated 03.11.1981, rejected the objection filed by Lochan. It also directed that the unauthorized possession of Chunna and the entry made in this regard be expunged.
Against the order passed by the Consolidation officer, Lochan filed an appeal which was dismissed by the Assistant Settlement Officer Consolidation vide order dated 31.01.1984.
Lochan thereafter filed a revision which was allowed in part on 06.01.1990. However, his objection regarding plot No. 4753 area 0.23 decimal was rejected.
The revisional order is stated to have been recalled on an application filed by the State of UP., but thereafter, after hearing the parties the revision has been allowed by the Deputy Director of Eduction vide order dated 06.07.2018 which is impugned in the writ petition.
By this order, the opposite party has been held entitled to even plot No. 4753 area 0.23 decimal regarding the courts below had decided against him. This order is impugned by the successor by Chunna.
The contention of counsel for the petitioners is that they are still in possession over plot NO. 4753 area 0.23 decimal.
Be that as it may, the fact remains that the Consolidation Officer had ordered the entry of unauthorized possession in favour of Chunna to be expunged, vide order dated 03.11.1981. This order was not subjected to any challenge by Chunna.
Under the circumstances and since the predecessor- in-interest of the petitioners 2 and 3 had acquiesced to the order of the Consolidation Officer dated 03.01.1981, it is not open for him to challenge the subsequent orders on grounds which had been repelled by the Consolidation officer.
Under the circumstances, this writ petitioner is devoid of merit and the same cannot be maintained by the petitioners, especially since their predecessor claim was rejected by the Consolidation Officer which order has attained finality, not having been challenged any further.
It is accordingly dismissed.
Order Date :- 31.10.2018 Priyanka