Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondent no.1 and Sri P.V. Chaudhary, learned counsel for respondent no.2.
Under challenge in this petition is an order dated 23.12.2018 passed by the Additional Collector (Finance and Revenue)/Deputy Director of Consolidation, Unnao, under Section 48 (3) of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act.
Only submission made by learned counsel for the petitioner is that though by the operative portion of the said order dated 28.12.2018, the petitioner, who is the chak holder of chak no.80A has been given some area in plot no.470, however the amended schedule appended to the said order dated 28.12.2018 does not show that he has been given any area in his chak out of gata no.470.
The aforesaid submission made by learned counsel for the petitioner is absolutely misconceived and incorrect for the reason that the amended schedule appended with the order dated 28.12.2018 only shows the area which has been excluded from the already allotted chak to the petitioner and the area included therein on account of acceptance of the reference by the said order dated 28.12.2018.
Form CH-23 has been produced by learned counsel for respondent no.2 of chak holder no.80A (petitioner), which is taken on record. According to the said Form CH-23, earlier the total area of plot no. 470 allotted to the petitioner was 0.239 hectare and now only 0.100 hectare area has been excluded by the order dated 28.12.2018, which is abundantly clear from the amended schedule appended with the said order dated 28.12.2018. Non mentioning of the area of plot no.470 in the amended schedule appended with the said order dated 28.12.2018 would not mean that the petitioner has not given any area in his chak. As a matter of fact, if the amended schedule appended with the said order is read with Form CH-23, it is abundantly clear that only an area of 0.100 hectare out of the total area allotted to thepetitioner i.e. out of 0.239 hectare of plot no.470 has been excluded from his chak.
For the aforesaid reasons, I do not see any illegality in the impugned order.
The writ petition is, thus dismissed.
Order Date :- 30.8.2019 Renu/-