Heard Shri Rahul Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Rishi Kant Rai, who has filed caveat on behalf of the respondent no. 3. The only reasoning in the order passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation (the DDC) in his judgment of reversal is that the revisionist, the opposite party in the writ petition had been allotted more udan area in his chak. On a specific query by this Court, it has been stated at the Bar that the largest original holding of the petitioner had an area of 0.278 hectare while he was allotted a compact chak having 2.780 hectares. When the compact chak having an area of more than four times of the largest original holding is proposed to a tenure holder it will automatically include alot of plots which are not his original holdings. In view of this fact, the reasoning given by the DDC for reversing the order passed by the Settlement Officer, Consolidation is prima facie not justified. Under the circumstances, the learned counsel for the caveator is granted three weeks time to file counter affidavit. Learned counsel for the petitioner will have two weeks thereafter to file rejoinder affidavit. Issue notice to respondent nos. 1, 2 and 4 by registered post A.D. Steps be taken within a week.
List on the date fixed in the notice returnable at an early date.
Until further orders, the effect and operation of the impugned order dated 4.4.2014 shall remain stayed. Order Date :- 2.5.2014 Priyanka