Court No. - 22
Case :- WRIT - B No. - 21032 of 1992 Petitioner :- Shiv Bibhuti Singh Respondent :- D.D.C. And Others Counsel for Petitioner :- K.S. Tewari Counsel for Respondent :- S.C.
Hon'ble Salil Kumar Rai,J.
In view of the office report dated 3.7.2013 service of notice on respondent Nos. 4 to 6 is deemed sufficient. However, no one has put in appearance on behalf of respondent Nos. 4 to 6.
Heard Shri K.S. Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel representing respondent Nos. 1 to 3.
The petitioner is Chakdar No. 227 and was proposed three chaks by the Assistant Consolidation Officer (hereinafter referred to as, 'A.C.O.'), which were allotted on his original holdings, i.e., Plot Nos. 232, 237 and 146. The petitioner filed objections before the Consolidation Officer (hereinafter referred to as, 'C.O.') praying that in place of chaks proposed by the A.C.O. on Plot Nos. 232 and 146 he may be allotted chaks on Plot Nos. 50 and 51 which were also part of his original holdings. The C.O. vide his order dated 26.12.1990 dismissed the objection of the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner had already been allotted chaks on his original holdings and chaks on Plot Nos. 50 and 51 had been allotted to respondent Nos. 4 to 6, who were also original tenure holders of Plot Nos. 50 and 51. Aggrieved by the order dated 26.12.1990 passed by the C.O., the petitioner filed Appeal No. 111 before the Settlement Officer of Consolidation (hereinafter referred to as, 'S.O.C.') under Section 21(2) of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as, 'Act, 1953'), which was partly allowed by the S.O.C., but the petitioner was still not allotted a chak on Plot Nos. 50 and 51. However, the chaks between the petitioner and respondent Nos. 4 to 6 were rearranged by the S.O.C. vide his order dated 20.7.1991. Aggrieved by the order dated 20.7.1991 passed by the S.O.C. whereby the chaks on Plot Nos. 50 and 51 was not allotted to the petitioner, the petitioner filed Revision No. 93 under Section 48 of the Act, 1953 before the Deputy Director of Consolidation, i.e., respondent No. 1 (hereinafter referred to as, 'D.D.C.') and respondent No. 6 aggrieved by the rearrangement of chaks as made by the S.O.C. vide his order dated 20.7.1991 also challenge the aforesaid order by filing Revision No. 728 under Section 48 of the Act, 1953 before the D.D.C. The D.D.C. vide his order dated 31.12.1991 dismissed Revision No. 93 filed by the petitioner and allowed Revision No. 728 filed by respondent No. 6. The orders dated 31.12.1991, 20.7.1991 and 26.12.1990 passed by respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3 have been challenged in the present writ petition.
During the course of argument, the learned counsel for the petitioner has challenged the impugned order only on the ground that the pettioner was entitled to a chak on Plot Nos. 50 and 51 which were the part of the original holdings of the petitioner.
A reading of the orders dated 31.12.1991, 20.7.1991 and 26.12.1990 passed by respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3 show that the petitioner had already been allotted chaks on his original holdings, i.e., Plot Nos. 232, 237 and 146 and Plot Nos. 50 and 51 was included in the chaks allotted to the contesting respondents, who were also original tenure holder of Plot Nos. 50 and 51.
In view of the above, there is no violation of any of the principles prescribed in Section 19 of the Act, 1953 in allotment of chaks as made by the Consolidation Authorities, and therefore, there is no illegality in the orders passed by the Consolidation Authorities.
The writ petition lacks merit and is dismissed. Interim order, if any, stands vacated.
Order Date :- 30.1.2019/Anurag/-