Court No. - 9
Case :- WRIT - B No. - 150 of 2019 Petitioner :- Ramtej Respondent :- State Of U P And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Vikrant Pandey,Ram Mani Upadhyay Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Anjani Kumar Mishra,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.
His contention is that the Consolidation Officer allotted him an udan chak by his order, whereby nine objections were decided by a common order.
The petitioner filed an appeal, which was allowed by the Settlement Officer Consolidation.
However, the revision filed by the respondent has been allowed and the appellate order has been reversed.
It is not in dispute that the petitioner purchased the land by means of a registered sale deed sometime in the year 2010. The petitioner is not in a position to state as to whether the sale deed was obtained before the start of consolidation operations or during its currency.
In the absence of the above information, it cannot be said that the petitioner has been allowed an udan chak.
Prima facie, it appears that the sale deed has been obtained during consolidation operations. For this reason, this Court does not find any substance in the writ petition.
This prima facie view in the strengthened by the fact that the chak number of the petitioner is 78-A. The petitioner appears to have purchased land from CH No. 48 and after chaks had been proposed or else his chak number would not have a prefix or suffix.
Under the circumstances, this Court is not convinced by the argument raised. Moreover, the impugned revisional order has been passed for cogent reason, which in my considered opinion, call for no interference.
A purchaser during the currency of consolidation operations, in my considered opinion, cannot be permitted to interfere in the chak allotment proceedings as the same leads to unnecessary complications. Moreover, a purchaser of land during consolidation operations should be alive to the risks involved in purchasing land which falls within a consolidation area and cannot seek to be absolved of the necessary consequences of consolidation operations.
For the same reason, I do not find it a fit case for interference. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed.
Order Date :- 22.1.2019 Mayank