Court No. - 11
Case :- WRIT - B No. - 39939 of 2007 Petitioner :- Ram Surat Respondent :- Addl. District Magistrate (F. & R.)/D.D.C. & Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Madan Mohan Srivastava Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Anil Kant Tripathi,O.N. Mishra,S.K. Srivastava,Sanjai Kushwaha
Hon'ble Salil Kumar Rai,J.
Heard Sri Madan Mohan Srivastava, counsel for the petitioner and Sri Krishna Kumar Dubey, counsel for respondent.
Aggrieved by the arrangement of chak as made by the Consolidation Officer, an appeal was filed by respondent nos. 4 to 8 which was allowed by the Settlement Officer of Consolidation, Azamgarh vide his order dated 29.6.1999 affecting the chak of the petitioner on his original holding i.e. Plot No. 758. The petitioner challenged the judgment and order dated 29.6.1999 by filing a revision registering Revision No. 70 under Section 48 of the Uttar Pradesh Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (hereafter referred to as, 'Act, 1953') which has been dismissed by the Additional District Magistrate acting as Deputy Director of Consolidation i.e. respondent no. 1 vide his order dated 7.6.2007. A perusal of the impugned order dated 7.6.2007 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation shows that the aforesaid order has been passed on the ground that Plot No. 758 was not the original holding of the revisionist/petitioner. It has been contended by the counsel for the petitioner that the order of respondent no. 1 is contrary to records as Plot No. 758 was the original holding of the petitioner and the same would be evident from a perusal of CH Form-23 relating to the petitioner. It has been further contended by counsel for the petitioner that Plot No. 758 is adjacent to road and therefore should have been allotted to him. In support of his contention, counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgments of this Court in the case of Jaswant Singh vs. D.D.C., Banda & Others 2006 (101) RD 207 and Bhola Singh vs. Dy. Director of Consolidation & Others 2007 (102) RD 563.
I have perused the records.
A supplementary affidavit has been filed by the petitioner annexing a copy of CH Form-23 from which it is evident that the petitioner had his original holding on Plot No. 758. The order of the Deputy Director of Consolidation is also very cryptic and the reasons given in the same are also contrary to the records. Further, in his impugned order dated 7.6.2007, the respondent no. 1 has not considered the fact that Plot No. 758 was adjacent to the road.
In the circumstances, the writ petition is allowed.
The order dated 7.6.2007 passed by respondent no. 1 is hereby set-aside. The matter is remanded back to respondent no. 1 i.e. Deputy Director of Consolidation, Azamgarh to pass fresh orders in Revision No. 70 after giving an opportunity of hearing to the affected parties. The Deputy Director of Consolidation shall pass a reasoned order after considering the records of the case and the judgment of this Court referred to in Jaswant Singh (supra) within a period of four months from the date a certified copy of the order is produced before him.
The parties shall maintain status-quo regarding the disputed plot till an order as aforesaid is passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation.
Order Date :- 27.4.2018 Satyam