1. Heard Sri Arvind Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri V.K. Singh holding brief of Sri Anshu Chaudhary, who has filed caveat on behalf of contesting respondents 2 and 3.
2. Supplementary affidavit filed in Court by learned counsel for the petitioner is taken on record.
3. The petition arises out of proceedings for allotment of chaks.
4. Referring to the C.H. Form 23 of the respondents, it has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the contesting respondents had purchased 3.52 of land and on account of consolidation operations and by means of the orders impugned in this writ petition, the area of their holding has increased to 7.14 hectares, which is more than double the area of their original holding. Therefore, such allotment is contrary to the basic principles, contained in the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, which provides that the change in area on account of consolidation operations, as compared to the original holding of a tenure holder, cannot be more than 25%.
5. On a pointed query, seeking a reply from learned counsel for the respondents on the above noted point, specifically argued on behalf of the petitioner, Sri V.K. Singh, learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that initially when the case was taken up on 29.8.2014, this Court had observed that the petitioner should file relevant documents to show that the area of the petitioner's holding had been reduced by more than 25%. Despite seeking several adjournments, the petitioner has not filed his C.H. Form 23 and, therefore, it is not open for him to dispute the allotment made in favour of the respondents. He has further stated that the writ petition has been filed with false averments. The area of the petitioner's holding has not been reduced by more than 25%. He further submits that the allegation that the petitioner has been allotted four chaks is also factually incorrect. The adjustment in the chaks was made by the consolidation authorities on the reasoning that the contesting respondents were entitled to a chak adjacent to their sister's chak, which contained a source of irrigation and would enable them to irrigate their chak from such source of irrigation. It was lastly submitted that the petitioner had filed an objection under section 20, which was rejected in 1992. The petitioner has not came to Court with clean hands and, is therefore not entitled to any relief.
6. It would be relevant to record that Sri V.K. Singh has not said a word as regards the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner, noted above.
7. Matter requires scrutiny.
8. Learned counsel for the respondents may file a counter affidavit within three weeks. Learned counsel for the petitioner will have two weeks thereafter to file a rejoinder affidavit.
9. List immediately after expiry of the aforesaid period.
10. Till the next date of listing, the effect and operation of the impugned order dated 19.1.2012 passed by the Consolidation Officer in Case No. 10 of 2010-11 shall remain stayed, unless already implemented on the spot.
Order Date :- 10.10.2014 SR