Court No. - 22
Case :- WRIT - B No. - 10253 of 1991 Petitioner :- Krishna Gopal Rai And Another Respondent :- D.D.C. And Others Counsel for Petitioner :- D.N. Pandey Counsel for Respondent :- Surjeet K.Rai,C.K. Rai,Faujdar Rai,S.C.
Hon'ble Salil Kumar Rai,J.
Heard the counsel for the parties.
The present writ petition has been filed challenging the order dated 18.3.1991 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation, District Azamgarh, i.e., respondent no. 1 in Revision Nos. 1110 and 1145 instituted under Section 48 of the Uttar Pradesh Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as, 'Act, 1953). Through the aforesaid order, the respondent no. 1 has allotted a chak to respondent no. 3 on Plot No. 56 on the ground that the private source of irrigation of respondent no. 3 was adjacent to Plot No. 56. The only ground raised by the counsel for the petitioners during the course of his arguments challenging the impugned order passed by respondent no.1 was that the objections of the petitioners filed under Section 9 of the Act, 1953 was still pending before the Consolidation Officer and therefore the said plot could not have been allotted to respondent no. 3.
The petitioners have not filed any document to substantiate the factual foundation of the aforesaid argument to enable the Court to examine the correctness of the averments that objections regarding Plot No. 56 filed under Section 9 of the Act, 1953 were filed and were pending before the concerned Consolidation Officer. Further, the allotment of chaks is made on the basis of annual register revised under Section 10 of the Act, 1953 and Rule 28 of the Uttar Pradesh Consolidation of Holdings Rules, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as, 'Rules, 1954'). Thus, the impugned order passed by respondent no. 1 allotting a chak to respondent no. 3 on Plot No. 56 cannot be held illegal or contrary to law even if the assertion of the petitioners that he had filed objections under Section 9 of the Act, 1953 and the said objections are still pending is accepted. In case, the petitioners have filed any objections under Section 9 of the Act, 1953 and the said objections are decided in favour of the petitioners, the petitioners would have a remedy under the Rules, 1954 read with Section 52(2) of the Act, 1953.
For the aforesaid reasons, there is no jurisdictional error in the impugned order passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation. The writ petition lacks merit and is, hereby, dismissed.
Interim order, if any, stands vacated.
Order Date :- 27.2.2019 Satyam