Court No. - 19
Case :- WRIT - B No. - 1611 of 2019 Petitioner :- Rambaran Pal Respondent :- State Of U P And 29 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Suresh Kumar Gupta,Ajay Kumar Shukla Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Anuj Kumar
Hon'ble Salil Kumar Rai,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.
The present writ petition has been filed against the orders dated 27.2.2018, 28.4.2018 and 25.2.2019 passed by the Consolidation Officer, i.e., respondent No. 4, Settlement Officer of Consolidation, i.e, respondent No. 3 and Deputy Director of Consolidation, i.e., respondent No. 2.
Dissatisfied with the proposal of the Assistant Settlement Officer of Consolidation, the petitioner filed objections before the Consolidation Officer, which were partly allowed by the Consolidation Officer vide his order dated 27.2.2018 and the chaks proposed to be allotted to the petitioner by the Assistant Settlement Officer of Consolidation were partly amended by the Consolidation Officer as prayed by the petitioner. However, the petitioner was still not satisfied with the amendment of chaks made by the Consolidation Officer, and therefore, filed an appeal before the Settlement Officer of Consolidation which was also partly allowed by the Settlement Officer of Consolidation vide his order dated 28.4.2018 and the petitioner was further granted a chak on his original holding and the allotment of chaks as made till the stage of Consolidation Officer were further modified to satisfy the grievance of the petitioner. Still dissatisfied, the petitioner filed a revision under Section 48 of the Uttar Pradesh Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 which was numbered as Revision No. 112/2018 before the Deputy Director of Consolidation. The Deputy Director of Consolidation vide his order dated 25.2.2019 dismissed the revision filed by the petitioner.
A reading of the impugned orders as well as the different records annexed with the writ petition show that all the chaks that have been allotted to the petitioner are on his original holdings and the Deputy Director of Consolidation has dismissed the revision of the petitioner on the ground that any further amendment of chak would adversely affect the opposite parties, who are small tenure holders and the amendment as sought by the petitioner would have the effect of allotting Udan Chaks to the opposite parties.
There is no illegality in the orders dated 27.2.2018, 28.4.2018 and 25.2.2019 passed by the Consolidation Officer, i.e., respondent No. 4, Settlement Officer of Consolidation, i.e, respondent No. 3 and Deputy Director of Consolidation, i.e., respondent No. 2.
The writ petition lacks merit, and is, accordingly
dismissed.
Order Date :- 26.7.2019 Anurag/-