Court No. - 9
Case :- WRIT - B No. - 394 of 2021 Petitioner :- Mohd. Sameed And 3 Others Respondent :- Deputy Director Of Consolidation And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ravi Sahu Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Arun Kumar Tiwari,Ram Kishore Pandey,Shailendra Singh
Hon'ble Salil Kumar Rai,J.
A supplementary affidavit filed by the petitioners is taken on record.
Heard the counsel for the petitioners.
The present writ petition has been filed challenging the orders passed by the consolidation authorities in proceedings registered under Sections 20 and 21 of the Uttar Pradesh Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 whereby the consolidation authorities have allotted chak to both the parties adjacent to road.
The petitioners claim that previous to the consolidation operations in the village, the plot was divided between the parties by the judgment and order dated 9.7.1980 passed by the revenue court in a partition suit filed by the opposite party and the allotment of chak violates the final decree passed in the aforesaid suit before the revenue court.
A reading of the orders passed by the consolidation authorities shows that the fact that the plot had already been divided between the parties in a partition suit instituted in the revenue court before the consolidation operations were notified in the village was not brought to the notice of the consolidation authorities in any objection filed under Section 9-A of the Uttar Pradesh Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953. For the said reason, the consolidation authorities have rejected the objections filed by the petitioners in proceedings registered under Sections 20 and 21 of the Uttar Pradesh Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953.
In light of Section 11-A of the Uttar Pradesh Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953, there is no illegality in the orders passed by the consolidation authorities so as to occasion interference by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
The writ petition lacks merit and is, hereby, dismissed.
Order Date :- 24.8.2021 Satyam