The court upheld the legality of the consolidation process, confirming that the Settlement Officer acted within jurisdiction and properly recorded findings regarding the division of the disputed plot.

JUDGMENT :

CHANDRA KUMAR RAI, J.

1. Heard Mr. Tripathi B.G. Bhai, learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. A.P. Tiwari as well as Mr. Hanuman Deen Verma, learned counsels for the contesting respondents and Mr. Tarun Gaur, learned Standing Counsel for the State respondents.

2. Brief facts of the case are that plot No. 128 area 3-12-3 belong to Vidya Niwas and Vidya Saran having one-half share each. Petitioner nos. 8 to 12 are the legal heirs of Vidya Saran who executed sale deed dated 16.5.2002 in favour of petitioner nos. 1 to 7. The sale deed dated 16.5.2002 was rectified by way of rectification deed dated 26.6.2003 executed by the petitioner nos. 8 to 12. Smt. Parmesara wife of Vidya Niwas who had also half share in the disputed property executed sale deed dated 26.10.1978 in favour of contesting respondents. Smt. Parmesara had also executed rectification deed dated 11.2.1992. Chak No. 95 was carved out in the name of petitioner nos. 8 to 12 whereas chak No. 64 was carved out in the name of contesting respondents. There was no partition between the parties in respect to the aforementioned plot. The aforementioned plot No. 128 was divided in five sub divisions. The particular of the same are as follows:

In the statement of principle prepared by the authorities, plot No. 128/1 area 170 air and plot No. 128/3 area 68 air was kept out of consolidation and plot No. 128/1 area 20 air was valued @ 100 paisa and plot No. 128/3 area 36 air has been valued @ 90 paisa. At the stage of Consolidation Officer, petitioners were proposed two chaks, first chak on plot No. 225-Sa area 0.364 hectare and second chak on plot No. 127-128 Sa area 0.345 hectare (total area 0.709 hectare). Petitioner nos. 8 to 12 filed an appeal under Section 21 (2) of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 hereinafter referred as U.P.C.H. Act before the Settlement Officer Consolidation stating that appellant as well as Parmesara was the co-sharer of one-half share each of the plot in question and Parmesara, had executed sale deed with regard to her one-half share in favour of Jugul Kishore, Narsingh, Buddhi Sagar sons of Ram Shanker accordingly both the parties remained in possession over one-half share of the plot No. 128. It is further pleaded in appeal that Jugul Kishore and others (vendees of Parmesara) colluded with the revenue authorities and succeeded in getting the plot Nos. 128/1 and 128/3 in their favour which is situated on the “lateral road” highway having commercial value and proceeding for keeping the plot No. 128 chak out is stated to be pending before the Consolidation Officer. The Settlement Officer Consolidation has allowed the appeal filed by petitioner nos. 8 to 12 after granting benefit of Section 5 of Limitation Act and the plot No. 128 was kept out of consolidation vide order dated 22.8.1994. Predecessor in interest of respondents filed revision under Section 48 of U.P.C.H. Act on 1.10.1994 against the order dated 22.8.1994 passed in appeal. Premawati, Sudhawati and Sumitra Devi have also filed revision under Section 48 of U.P.C.H. Act against the appellate order dated 22.8.1994. All the revisions were consolidated along with revision No. 1119 filed by contesting respondents and heard together.

Deputy Director of Consolidation vide order dated 15.3.1995 partly allowed the revision No. 1119, revision No. 1100/1814, revision No. 1099/1813, revision No. 1149, revision No. 1061/1771 but dismissed the revision No. 1103/1817. Contesting respondents filed writ petition No. 16594 of 1995 as well as Writ Petition No. 16593 of 1995 before this Court against the revisional order dated 15.3.1995 wh