Court No. - 44
Case :- WRIT - B No. - 1023 of 2019 Petitioner :- Nagar Palika Parishad Samthar Respondent :- Deputy Director Of Consolidation And 5 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Narendra Pratap Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Rajiv Joshi,J.
Heard Sri N.P. Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing counsel for the State-respondents.
The present writ petition has been filed challenging the order dated 27.9.2018 passed by the respondent no.1-Deputy Director of Consolidation in Revision No. 26/129/2016530637000033 as well as order dated 8.11.1988 passed by the Settlement Officer Consolidation in Appeal Nos. 7/1988 &8/1988.
The facts as reflect from the record are that against the order passed by the Consolidation Officer dated 26.12.1978 two appeals were filed one by respondent no.4 and other by Sarju (father of respondent nos. 5 and 6.) Both the appeal were allowed vide order dated 8.11.1988 passed by the Settlement Officer Consolidation. Against the said order, revision was filed by the petitioner on 18.5.2016 on the ground that the land in question i.e. land of Arazi No. 1249 reserved for khalian which is the land of Gaon Sabha but without impleading the Gaon Sabha as a party appeal was allowed.
The revision was filed beyond time by 29 years. The Deputy Director of Consolidation has recorded a finding that the order passed by the Settlement Officer Consolidation had already been implemented at the spot as a primary school and abadi has been situated at the land which the petitioner claims to be the land of khalian. It is further recorded by the Deputy Director of Consolidation that land of plot No. 1249 and 1250 is not reserved for the purposes of khalian is alleged by the petitioner. The Deputy Director of Consolidation further recorded a finding that the revision was filed after 29 years and challenging the order of Settlement Officer Consolidation and that order had already been implemented at the spot and there is primary school and abadi over the said land situated and even the delay in filing the revision has not been explained properly. The revision was dismissed on the ground of limitation as well as on merits.
Learned counsel for the petitioner fails to point out any error passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation.
In these circumstances, no ground for any interference under Article 226 of the Constitution is made out and the present writ petition is devoid of any merits and is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs.
Order Date :- 29.4.2019 Akbar