Court No. - 9
Case :- WRIT - B No. - 5167 of 2018 Petitioner :- Saleem Respondent :- Additional District Magistrate / Deputy Director Of Consolidation And 11 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Santosh Kumar Srivastava,Karuna Srivastava Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Anjani Kumar Mishra,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioners.
Petitioner has in this petitioner challenged the order dated 15.05.2018 and 09.04.2016 passed by the first respondent, the orders dated 26.09.2015 and 29.11.2014 passed by the Settlement Officer Consolidation. By these orders, the petitioner has been deprived of his chak on plot No. 799 which was his original holding and allegedly valuable road side land.
It appears that at the appellate stage, the chak of the petitioner was disturbed and plot no. 799 was excluded therefrom. A restoration application was filed which was also rejected. The petitioner thereafter preferred a revision which was dismissed in the year 2016. Yet again a restoration application was filed which was dismissed on 15.05.2018. Hence this writ petition challenging the order passed by the Settlement Officer Consolidation on the appeal and the restoration application as also revisional order of the Deputy Director of Consolidation and the order passed on the restoration application.
However as observed above, the bone of contention in this writ petition is that plot No. 799.
On a pointed query by the Court, counsel for the petitioner stated that the factum that this land was valuable road side land was specifically taken as a ground before the court below. However, he admits that there is no averment in the writ petition that this ground taken in the memo of appeal was actually pressed.
Besides this Court does not find that any discussion or reference to this fact, in the impugned order.
Prima facie, therefore, this Court is of the considered opinion, that this ground actually not pressed before the Deputy Director of Consolidation. Therefore, the same has not been discussed.
The same will not be vitiated in the impugned order.
In the order dated 15.05.2018 the Deputy Director of Consolidation has observed that the order-sheet of 11.02.2016 records that the petitioner- revisionist was heard. His signature is also available on the said order sheet. The order dated 09.09.2016 also deals elaborately with the arguments of the parties. Therefore, the restoration application filed to recall order dated 09.09.2016 has been rejected.
This rejection is fully justified as the order dated 09.06.2016 was not ex parte.
It would be relevant to note that at the appellate stage, the petitioner has been shifted to plot No. 809 which as per his CH Form 23, on page 25 of the paper book, is his largest original holding.
Under the circumstances, the chak proposed to the petitioner is in consonance with provisions contained in Section 19 of the UP Consolidation of Holdings Act and for this reason alone, there is no merit in the writ petition.
It is accordingly dismissed.
Order Date :- 27.11.2018 Priyanka