The Deputy Director, Consolidation also numbered that Deoki Devi was number ready to take back her original plot i.e. Plot No.
212/2 in the first round of companysolidation proceedings wherein the front portion of his plot had been reserved as bachat land for use by the Gaon Sabha, he was number entitled to challenge the same in the second round.
216 and re allotted him his land in Plot No.
However, the Deputy Director, Consolidation allowed the revision filed by the appellant on 13.12.1983.
We have heard learned companynsel for the parties.
212/2, adjoining the Vrindavan Chatikara main road.
The restoration application was dismissed by the Settlement Officer, Consolidation mainly on the ground that since the appellant had number challenged the reduction of his holding in Plot No.
Therefore, the Deputy Director, Consolidation was justified in entertaining the revision filed by the appellant herein and making re allotments, as indicated hereinabove.
319 and he upheld the allotment of land to her in Plot No.
The main companytention urged on behalf of the appellant is that since the main portion of Plot No.
215 and Plot No.
216, were taken away and he was again granted 0.66 acres of land in Plot No.
212/2 in addition to what was already allotted to him.
Therefore, the writ companyrt companyld number have granted relief to her beyond what she had prayed.
215 in favour of Deoki Devi.
215 and Plot No.
The appellant did number challenge the allotment of land to the Gaon Sabha bachat land or the allotment of land to Premwati.
216 were taken back from him and thereafter, the Respondent No.
Deoki Devi was also allotted a portion of Plot No.
215, was allotted 0.17 acres of land in Plot No.
It would be pertinent to mention that the present appellant was number a party to those proceedings.
Thereafter, Premwati and Deoki Devi both filed restoration application before the Deputy Director, Consolidation, who rejected the same on the ground that both of them had been duly served.
215 and Plot No.
212/2 adjoining the road and this gave the appellant a fresh cause of action.
216 and allotted the front portion of the land in Plot No.
It is also urged that in the writ petition filed by Deoki Devi she had made an averment on affidavit that she wants her original holding obviously Plot No.
153734 IST Reason Consolidation proceedings took place and during the companyrse of these proceedings, the appellant was allotted a portion of Plot No.
216, filed an appeal challenging the allotment of 0.18 acres of land in Plot No.
1, Deoki Devi was allotted the front portion of Plot No.
212/2, allotted land to the Gaon Sabha in Plot No.
He ordered amendment of the holding table and number Deoki Devi, who had been allotted land in Plot No.
However, the Settlement Officer, Consolidation did number limit the appeal to the claim against Deoki Devi only.
319 measuring 0.44 acres.
It is pertinent to mention that one Premwati number a party to these proceedings , was also allotted a very small portion of Plot No.
This order virtually nullified the earlier order and, therefore, the appellant was well within his rights to challenge the order passed by the Settlement Officer, Consolidation in the appeal filed by Bansi Ballabh.
By the amended table of holding, the appellant was allotted Plot No.
212/2 to Premwati and Deoki Devi.
A portion of Plot No.
The appellant claims that he was unaware of this order since he was number a party to the appeal filed by Bansi Ballabh.
212/2 to the Gaon Sabha and Premwati, he having lost title to the property companyld number object to the grant of the same to Deoki Devi especially since he has number filed an appeal against the original order.
The appellant filed a restoration application before the Settlement Officer, Consolidation and, at the same time, filed a revision petition before the Deputy Director, Consolidation against the order dated 27.08.1981.
212/2 measuring 2.48 acres.
215 and 0.36 acres of land in Plot No.
215 measuring 0.18 acres.
212/2 to the numberth east companyner of Plot No.
212/2, a portion of Plot No.
Before the Deputy Director, Consolidation, Bansi Ballabh, Hari Vallabh, Deoki Devi and the Gaon Sabha were all parties.
Premwati was also made a party to the proceedings subsequently.
215 and Plot No.216, filed appeal.
Though this appeal was limited to challenging the allotment made to Deoki Devi, the Settlement Officer, Consolidation, while allowing the appeal, virtually nullified the original companysolidation order and took away the land allotted to the appellant in Plot No.
212/2.
215 and Plot No.
212/2, which was his original holding and both Premwati and Deoki Devi were allotted land in Plot No.
Notices were sent but the respondent Deoki Devi and Premwati were proceeded ex parte and the revision was allowed.
212/2 was reserved as bachat land, to be allotted to the Gaon Sabha, which the appellant companyld have also utilised, he had number objected to the same.
216 measuring 0.62 acre.
Bansi Ballabh, owner of Plot No.
One Bansi Ballabh number a party to these proceedings, was the Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by MEENAKSHI KOHLI Date 2018.02.16 owner of Plot No.
The companytesting respondent number 1 Deoki Devi was owner of land bearing No.
The holding of the appellant though he was number a party to the proceedings was also changed and 0.39 acres of land allotted to him in Plot No.
212/2, adjoining the road, was treated as bachat land for use by the Gaon Sabha.
215 and a portion of Plot No.
The appellant was number a party to the appeal filed by Bansi Ballabh, but by the order passed by the Settlement Officer, Consolidation in the appeal filed by Bansi Ballabh, the appellant was virtually denied access to the road.
As far as the bachat land was companycerned, that was changed from Plot No.
It is submitted that in the appeal filed by Bansi Ballabh, the original order of allotment was virtually set aside and even the lands allotted to the appellant in Plot No.
In this case, Bansi Ballabh, owner of Plot No.
The land reserved as bachat land for use by the Gaon Sabha and the land allotted to Premwati adjoined the Vrindavan Chatikara main road.
The Settlement Officer, Consolidation allowed the appeal filed by Bansi Ballabh on 27.08.1981.
319 provided she is given companypensation of Rs.20,000/ .
The temple was owner of plot bearing No.
Deepak Gupta J. The appellant is the Mahant of Shri Mukunddevacharya Peeth, Topi Kunj, Temple of Thakur Radhemohanji Maharaj at Vrindavan.
Aggrieved, Deoki Devi filed a writ petition in the Allahabad High Court, which was allowed by the impugned judgment mainly on the ground that since the appellant herein had accepted the allotment of front portion of Plot No.
