Mrs. Poonam Srivastav, J.: -

Heard Sri Onkar Singh, Counsel for the petitioners and Sri Vishal Khandelwal Ad­vocate on behalf of contesting respondent No. 5.

2. The dispute relates to plot No. 219 situated in village Hariya Khera, Pargana Kandhala, Tahsil Budhana, District Muzaffar Nagar which was recorded as Banjar land in revenue records. During consolida­tion proceedings when statements were prepared with the consent of consolidation committee, exchange ratio of plot No. 219 was determined by Assistant Consolidation Officer as 20 paisa. This entry was recorded in column No. 27 of C.H. Form 2A. No ob­jection or appeal was filed by any chak holder of the village including respondent No. 5. Subsequently provisional consolida­tion scheme was prepared by the Assistant Consolidation Officer under section 19 of the U.P.C.H. Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and plot No. 219 was allotted in the chaks of the petitioners as well as few other chak holders. The proceedings to carve out chak was finalized up till stage of Deputy Director of Consolidation and plot No. 219 was allotted to the petitioners. A report was submitted by the Assistant Con­solidation Officer on 23.1.1996 that posses­sion under section 28 of the Act has been delivered to the respective chak holders of the village. After confirmation of the pro­visional scheme, a time barred objection was preferred by respondent No. 5 on 10.6.1999 alongwith an application under section 5 of Limitation Act, supported by an affidavit. The respondent No. 5 claimed that he was in possession of the said plot since last 20 years and objection under sec­tion 9(2) of the Act is pending between Jagmal v. State. It was further asserted that it is fertile plot and exchange ratio was li­able to be increased to 60 paisa in place of 20 paisn. The Assistant Consolidation Offi­cer submitted his report on 10.5.2002 that the plot in question was recorded in the name of respondent No. 5 on 23.2.2000. It was also specifically stated that half part of the plot is fertile and possession has al­ready been delivered on 23.1.1996.

3. Submission of learned Counsel for the petitioners is that objection of respon­dent No. 5 was illegally allowed by the Consolidation Officer vide order dated 20.9.2000 without opportunity of hearing to the other chak holders including the peti­tioners since the plot in question was situ­ated in the chak of the petitioners. The pe­titioners preferred an appeal before the Settlement Officer Consolidation. Specific assertion was that portion of the plot No. 219 given to the petitioners was made fer­tile and they have spent almost Rs. 80,000/-in levelling the land and viable for cultiva­tion. The appeal was dismissed on 10.10.2002. Revision filed by the petitioners was also dismissed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation vide order dated 8.5.2003.

4. Perusal of the order of the Con­solidation Officer, Budhana clearly states that he himself had made an inspection of plot No. 219 on 19.9.2000 and he had found that the land is equally levelled and the land is apparently fertile. Since he had made spot inspection himself, therefore, an order was passed that valuation should be increased from 20 paisa to 60 paisa. The appellate order in the appeal preferred by the petitioners is also on the basis of spot inspection carried out by the Consolidation Officer himself. Annexure-6 to the writ petition is the grounds of revision and ground No. 6 is specific to the effect that the Consolidation Officer has not made any spot inspection whatsoever. There is no document about spot inspection on record and in absence of any such report of spot inspection, the order is liable to be rejected. However, the Deputy Director of Consoli­dation without considering the specific ground confirmed the order of the appel­late authority, though basis of the order was spot inspection report mentioned in the order of the Consolidation Officer.

5. Counsel for the contesting re­spondent has tried to emphasize th

Click Here to Read the rest of this document