Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2004 DIGILAW 389 (ALL)

Shyam Behari v. Deputy Director of Consolidation

2004-02-25

A.N.VARMA

body2004
JUDGMENT : A.N. VARMA, J. 1. Against the proposed allotment of chaks, the Petitioner filed an objection u/s 19 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act (hereinafter to be referred as an 'Act') before the Consolidation Officer. The claim of the Petitioner was that plot No. 651 was his largest and most fertile holding with a private source of irrigation, therefore, he be allotted chak on the said plot. The Consolidation Officer vide its judgment and, order dated 17.6.2002 allowed the claim of the Petitioner and he was allotted two chaks, i.e., one at plot No. 651 and the order at plot No. 526. Both the said chaks were carved out at the original holdings of the Petitioner. Still not satisfied he approached the opposite party No. 2 in appeal u/s 21 of the Act. The Settlement Officer, Consolidation vide its judgment and order dated 3.5.2003 dismissed the appeal on the ground that since the claim of the Petitioner has been allowed and he has been allotted two chaks at his original holdings, therefore, there was no ground for any interference in the order passed by the Consolidation Officer. 2. Being aggrieved against the order of dismissal of appeal, the Petitioner filed a revision u/s 48 of the Act. The opposite party No. 1 vide judgment and order dated 7.1.2004 dismissed the Revision and reiterated the findings of the Consolidation Officer and the Settlement Officer, Consolidation. It is against the said orders passed by the Consolidation Authorities, that the Petitioner has approached this Court through the present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 3. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner vehemently argued that in view of the provision of Section 19 of the Act every tenure holder should be allotted a compact area at the place where he holds the largest part of his holding. According to him since he had been allotted two chaks and not a compact area as contemplated u/s 19, therefore, the order passed by the Consolidation Authorities is bad and manifestly erroneous. His submission further is that the Consolidation Authorities declined to allot him with the original area that was earlier existing and a lesser area has been allotted. In this connection he also placed reliance upon a decision rendered by this Court in Bechan Singh Vs. Deputy Director of Consolidation and Others, (1985) AWC 604. 4. His submission further is that the Consolidation Authorities declined to allot him with the original area that was earlier existing and a lesser area has been allotted. In this connection he also placed reliance upon a decision rendered by this Court in Bechan Singh Vs. Deputy Director of Consolidation and Others, (1985) AWC 604. 4. On the basis of the said judgment the submission of the learned Counsel for the Petitioner was that allotment of chak has to be made consistent with the provision of Section 19 of the Act. His submission is that the principle enunciated under the said section contemplates that every tenure holder should be allotted a compact area at the place where he holds largest part of his holdings and further he should be allotted the plot on which exists his private source of irrigation or any other improvement. 5. Section 19 of the Act is reproduced hereunder: 19. 5. Section 19 of the Act is reproduced hereunder: 19. Conditions to be fulfilled by a Consolidation Scheme.-(1) A consolidation scheme shall fulfil the following conditions, namely: (a) the rights and liabilities of a tenure-holder in the annual register prepared u/s 10, are subject to the deductions, if any, made on account of contributions to public purposes under this Act, secured in the land allotted to him ; (b) the valuation of plots allotted to a tenure-holder, subject to deductions, if any, made on account of contributions to public purposes under this Act, in equal to the valuation of plots originally held by him: Provided that, except the permission of the Director of Consolidation, the area of the holding or holdings allotted to a tenure-holder shall not differ from the area of his original holding or holdings by more than twenty-five per cent of the latter: (c) the compensation deter-mined under the provisions of this Act, or the rules framed there-under, is awarded: (1) to the tenure-holder: (i) for trees, wells and other improvements, originally held by him and allotted to another tenure-holder, and (ii) for land contributed by him for public purposes ; (2) to the Gaon Sabha, or any other local authority, as the case may be, for development, if any, effected by it in or over land belonging to it and allotted to a tenure-holder ; (d) the principles laid down in the Statement of Principles are followed ; (e) every tenure-holder is, as far as possible, allotted a compact area at the place where he holds the largest part of his holding: Provided that no tenure-holder may be allotted more chaks than three, except with the approval in writing of the Deputy Director of Consolidation; (f) every tenure-holder is, as far as possible, allotted the plot on which exists his private source of irrigation or any other improvement, together with an area in the vicinity equal to the valuation of the plots, originally held by him there ; and (g) every tenure-holder is , as far as possible, allotted chaks in conformity with the process of rectangulation in rectangulation units. (2) A Consolidation Scheme before it is made final u/s 23, shall be provisionally drawn up in accordance with the provisions of Scheme 19A. (2) A Consolidation Scheme before it is made final u/s 23, shall be provisionally drawn up in accordance with the provisions of Scheme 19A. As would appear from the perusal of the aforesaid provision, every tenure holder, as far as possible shall be allotted a compact area at the place where he holds the largest part of his holding. It further postulates that every tenure holder as far as possible be allotted chaks in conformity with the process of rectangulation and also where his private sources of irrigation exists. 6. The proviso appended to Section 19 lays down that no tenure holder may be allotted more chaks than 3 except with the approval in writing of the Deputy Director of Consolidation. What is clearly decipherable from the aforesaid proviso is that even more than 3 chaks can also be allotted to the tenure holder, but with the prior approval of the Deputy Director of Consolidation. In the case at hand the Petitioner has been allotted two chaks and both on his original holding. 7. In para 2 of the writ petition, the Petitioner has averred that plot No. 651 was the largest and most fertile holding with Petitioner's private source of irrigation over the same. The Consolidation Officer after making a spot inspection and perusal of the map of the village came to the conclusion that the grievance of the Petitioner was justified, therefore, it allowed the claim of the Petitioner and allotted one chak at plot No. 651 and the other at 526, both being at the original numbers of the Petitioner. In view of the fact that the claim of the Petitioner having been satisfied under the orders passed by the Consolidation Officer there was absolutely no occasion for filing an appeal before the Settlement Officer, Consolidation. However, the appeal filed by the Petitioner was entertained and was dismissed with the observation that since both the chaks having been allotted to the Petitioner on his original numbers, therefore, there was no justification for interference with the order passed by the Consolidation Officer. The revision filed by the Petitioner was also dismissed as the claim of the Petitioner already stood satisfied with the disposal of his objections u/s 19 by the Consolidation Officer. 8. Section 19 of the Act lays down the conditions which should, as far as possible, be fulfilled while preparing the consolidation scheme. The revision filed by the Petitioner was also dismissed as the claim of the Petitioner already stood satisfied with the disposal of his objections u/s 19 by the Consolidation Officer. 8. Section 19 of the Act lays down the conditions which should, as far as possible, be fulfilled while preparing the consolidation scheme. The area and valuation of plots allotted, subject to the deductions, if any, made on account of contributions for the public purposes under the Act, by equal to an area and valuation of plots originally held by him provided that the area of the holding or holdings shall not defer from the area of the original holding or holdings by more than 25% except with the permission of the Director of Consolidation. No tenure holder is to get more than 3 chaks except with the approval in writing with the Deputy Director of Consolidation. Every tenure holder is to be allotted a compact area at the place where he holds the largest part of his holdings. He should as far as possible, also be allotted his private source of irrigation. 9. Therefore, as far as possible all the conditions which are prescribed under the aforesaid section has to be adhered to by the Consolidation Authorities. But the intention appears to be that the allotment in respect of chaks has to be made looking to the interest of all the villagers at large. Interest of one individual is not only to be taken into account. A particular chak holder cannot claim that all the conditions that are laid down under the consolidation scheme should be satisfied in so far as he alone is concerned, as the process of compulsory consolidation is very difficult and complicated and there is no straight road back towards consolidation. The conditions by the consolidation scheme are to be fulfilled "as far as possible", the phrase which really means that the principles are to be observed unless it is not possible to follow them in particular circumstances of a case. 10. In the case at hand the consolidation authorities have not deviated at all from the principles prescribed u/s 19 of the Act. 10. In the case at hand the consolidation authorities have not deviated at all from the principles prescribed u/s 19 of the Act. In view of the fact that the claim of the Petitioner having already been allowed by the Consolidation Officer and he having been allotted two chaks on his original holdings, there arises absolutely no ground for interference in the orders passed by the Consolidation Authorities. 11. The petition being devoid of merits, is hereby dismissed.