Court No. - 22
Case :- WRIT - B No. - 17394 of 1992 Petitioner :- Prasad Respondent :- D.D.C. And Other Counsel for Petitioner :- R.P. Singh,Sankatha Rai,V.K.Rai. Counsel for Respondent :- S.C.,A N Srivastava,Ashok K Singh,Jamwant Maurya,R.D. Singh,S.K. Dwivedi,Shailendra Dwivedi
Hon'ble Salil Kumar Rai,J.
Heard the counsel for the parties.
Against the order dated 28.12.1991, passed by the Settlement Officer of Consolidation, District Ghazipur in Appeal No. 2361, whereby the chaks of the petitioner were rearranged and the petitioner was allotted a chak consisting of certain plot which were reserved for road, a revision was filed by respondent nos. 3, 4 and 5 under Section 48 of the Uttar Pradesh Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 hereinafter refer to as the Act of 1953 which has been allowed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation i.e respondent no. 1 by judgment and order dated 10.04.1992. The order dated 10.04.1992 has been challenged in the present writ petition.
It has been argued by the counsel for the petitioner that the revision was not maintainable at the instance of the respondents as they were not aggrieved by the order dated 28.12.1991 passed by the Settlement Officer of Consolidation. A reading of the order passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation does not show that the said argument was raised by the petitioner before the Deputy Director of Consolidation. Further it has not been stated in the writ petition that the said argument was raised before the Deputy Director of Consolidation by the petitioner and the Deputy Director of Consolidation failed to consider the same. The petitioner cannot be permitted to raise the said argument for the first time in the writ petition.
Apart from the aforesaid, the Deputy Director of Consolidation through his impugned order dated 10.04.1992 has merely rearranged the Chaks and restored the plot which were reserved for roads. The Settlement Officer of Consolidation vide his order dated 28.12.1991 had allotted the said plot in the Chak of the petitioner without assigning any reasons for the same. There is no jurisdictional error in the order of the Deputy Director.
It is not a fit case for interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
The writ petition lacks merit and is dismissed.
Order Date :- 26.2.2019 sweta