Court No. - 36
Case :- WRIT - B No. - 3169 of 2018 Petitioner :- Sandeep Kumar Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 5 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Sanjay Singh Sengar Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Anuj Kumar,Nand Kishor Mishra
Hon'ble Mrs. Sunita Agarwal,J.
The present writ petition is directed against the order passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation dated 17.11.2017 whereby the chak arrangement made by the Assistant Consolidation Officer was restored. The petitioner is chak holder no. 1011 whereas the contesting respondent is chak holder no. 356.
A perusal of CH Form-23 shows that the plot nos. 2654M, 2662M and 887M are plots of original holding of the respondent, chak holder no. 356 whereas original holdings of the petitioner were in plot nos. 814M, 2655M, 286M etc.
As per the proposal prepared by the Assistant Consolidation Officer, the petitioner has been provided three chaks comprising of Gata Nos. 2654/2, 885/1 and 2679 etc. The respondent, on the other hand, was provided chak comprising of Gata No. 2654, 2655 and 2656.
It appears that in appeal, certain changes were made by the Assistant Consolidation Officer in three chaks of the petitioner and certain area of plot nos. 885/1, 885/2, 887 was taken up from the chak of the petitioner and adjusted in the chak of respondent chak holder no. 356 whereas the chak of the respondent in plot no. 2655 etc. was adjusted in the chak of the petitioner. As a result of it, the respondent chak holder no. 356 got three chaks comprising of plot no. 2643M, 2655M and 817M etc.
Aggrieved, the respondent filed a revision whereby the chak arrangement proposed by the Assistant Consolidatioin Officer was restored. It is categorically recorded by the revisional court that plot nos. 2645, 2651, 2654, 2655 and 2656, the area mentioned therein were plots was sold by the original tenure holder. The said plots are plots of original holdings of the revisionist/respondent. Looking to the grievances of the respondent purchaser chak holder no. 356, it was thought proper that the chak arrangement made by the Assistant Consolidation Officer be restored.
To challenge these orders, learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contends that as a result arrangement made by the Assistant Consolidation Offer, the petitioner was provided an 'udan chak' in plot no. 885 etc. The said arrangement was modified by the Settlement Officer Consolidation keeping in mind that all tenure holder would get their chaks in their original holdings, as far as possible.
Dealing with this submission of learned counsel for the petitioner having gone through CH Form-23, it is more than apparent that the Chak holder no. 356 is original tenure holder of plot no. 2654.
The Chaks of both the tenure holders are adjusted in such a manner that nearby plots namely plot no. 2655 be included in these chaks. The petitioner has been provided chaks comprising of plot nos. 2643M and 2644M etc. which are near the plots of his original holding.
No prejudice said to have been caused to the petitioner could be found from the said arrangement.
No infirmity is found in the consolidation scheme finalised by the Consolidation Authorities.
Dismissed as such.
Order Date :- 30.3.2018 Brijesh