Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 113 (UTT)

HARI DAS v. JOINT DIRECTOR OF CONSOLIDATION

2007-03-15

B.S.VERMA

body2007
JUDGMENT Hon’ble B.S. Verma, J. Heard Sri M.S. Tyagi, learned counsel for the petitioner Sri Nand Prasad, learned standing counsel for the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 and Sri J.C. Pandey, learned counsel for the respondent No.4. 2. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned judgment and orders dated 24-01-1991 and 7-12-1990 passed by the respondents No. 1 and 2 i.e Joint Director of consolidation, Meerut Camp At Roorkee and Assistant Settlement Officer, Consolidation, Haridwar (contained in annexure No.2 and 1 respectively) whereby the Assistant settlement Officer, Consolidation Haridwar allowed the appeal of respondent No.4 and the revision filed by the petitioner against the order dated 7-12-1990 has been dismissed by the Joint Director of Consolidation, Meerut (Camp At Roorkee). 3. Briefly stated the facts giving rise to the present writ petition are that the dispute in the present writ petition arisen out of proceedings under Section 20 of U.P. Consolidation of Land Holdings Act (hereinafter to be referred as the ‘Act’). The petitioner is the Chak holder No. 573 whereas the respondent No.4 is Chak holder No.351. The provisional scheme was prepared by the Assistant Consolidation Officer under Section 19 of the act and plot No. 312 was proposed to be included in the Chak of the petitioner. Being aggrieved by the said scheme, the respondent No.4 filed an objection under Section 20 of the act inter alia on the grounds before Consolidation Officer that the Chak proposed to be allotted to the respondent No.4 on Khasra Plot No.238 etc is irrational as it is situated at a long distance from the village and is comprising of inferior quality of land and accordingly prayer was made for allotment of Chak to him by including Khasra Plot No. 312. The Consolidation Officer rejected the objection of Moti Lal, the respondent No. 4 vide order dated 9-8-1990. The Consolidation Officer rejected the objection of Moti Lal, the respondent No. 4 vide order dated 9-8-1990. Aggrieved by the order of Consolidation Officer, the respondent No.4 preferred an appeal under section 21(2) of the Act along with delay condonation application before respondent No.2 The Assistant Settlement Consolidation Officer after hearing both the parties, condoned the delay in filing the appeal and the appeal was allowed by the Assistant Settlement Consolidation Officer, Haridwar (Camp at Roorkee) and half and half area of Plot No.312 was given to the petitioner as well as to the respondent No.4. 4. Considering all the aspects and on the basis of consent which was given during the course of arguments by the parties, Assistant Settlement Consolidation Officer has amended the Chak and the Chak was also given to the petitioner on plot No. 312 also and half area has been proposed to respondent no.4. Aggrieved by the said order dated 7-12-1990, the petitioner preferred a revision under Section 48 of the Act before the respondent No.1 i.e Joint Director of Consolidation Meerut Camp at Roorkee, which was dismissed on the ground that according to the share of the petitioner, the valuation of the Plot No.312 of the petitioner of his share was 22 paise and on the same place, the Chak was given of valuation 111 paise. The valuation at the 2nd Chak was proposed on Plot No.236, 237 of the valuation 88.86 paise while the valuation of his share was 60 paise. 5. The grounds taken in the writ petition is that the petitioner never entered into any such compromise with regard to Plot No.312 and 237 as spelled by the respondent No.2 in the impugned judgment nor the petitioner’s counsel had never extended any such consent on behalf of the petitioner during the course of the argument and as such the respondent No.2 was not legally competent to assumed such agreed settlement of plots in question and to proceed to decide the appeal in accordance with the same. In this view of the matter the said judgment is illegal. 6. In this view of the matter the said judgment is illegal. 6. A Counter affidavit has been filed by the respondent No. 4 in which it has been specifically stated in paragraph no.6 of the counter affidavit that the appeal was rightly allowed by the respondent No.2 and the parties have agreed before the appellate court for adjustment of the area and the order of the appellate Authority a concerned order. It is incorrect to say that the petitioner’s counsel did not extend any consent before the Appellate Court. It was further stated in paragraph 8 of the Counter affidavit that it is incorrect to say that Plot No. 312 is adjacent to the Village Abadi and for better watch over the Chak, the entire Chak should be allowed over the plot No. 312 to the petitioner. It is further stated in paragraph 11 of the counter affidavit that the allegation that the petitioner has been deprived of his source of irrigation is factually incorrect and was denied by the respondent No.4. 7. I have heard the petitioner Sri M.S. Tyagi learned counsel for the petitioner at length and perused the record. It is the admitted fact that the parties have raised the dispute regarding Plot No.312 only and initially the Assistant Consolidation Officer stated that the whole area of the Plot was allotted in the Chak of the petitioner against which the objections were filed by the respondent No.4 on the ground that the Plot No.312 was more valuable and is near to the Village abadi. The Consolidation Officer did not find favour to the petitioner and objection was rejected against which the appeal was preferred by the respondent No.4, which was allowed on merit on the basis of the consent of the parties but in this writ petition the consent has been denied by the parties. It reveals from the record that no compromise had ever being verified before the court below. The Assistant Consolidation Officer did not pass any order on the basis of written compromise but during the course of arguments, the consent was given by the parties that the Chak be proposed on the basis of consent and half portion of Plot No.312 has been given to the respondent No.4. The Assistant Consolidation Officer did not pass any order on the basis of written compromise but during the course of arguments, the consent was given by the parties that the Chak be proposed on the basis of consent and half portion of Plot No.312 has been given to the respondent No.4. Aggrieved by the order impugned, the revision was preferred and the respondent No.1 did not find any favour on the ground that according to the share of the petitioner, the valuation was 22 paise at that place while he was given Chak including other Plot at the rate of 111 paise. 8. I have perused the Form C-H-23 and it reveals by perusal of Form C-H-23 that the share in Plot No.312 of the plaintiff/petitioner was one fourth of total area of Plot No.312 was 2 Bigha and 3 Biswas, thus, the share comes to 10 Bishva 15 Bishvansi. The learned Assistant Settlement Consolidation Officer proposed the half area to the petitioner and half area to the respondent No.4 to be given in their Chaks while the share of the petitioner was only 1/4th even assuming that there was no consent of the parties. The Assistant Settlement Consolidation Officer and Joint Director of Consolidation did not commit any manifest error of law and there is no infirmity in the order impugned by proposing half area to the petitioner in his Chaks and half area to the respondent No.4. The petitioner failed to establish the fact that the Chak was amended against the provision of Section 19 of the Act while the Joint Director of Consolidation dismissed the revision and it was held on merit that the Assistant Settlement Officer Consolidation rightly allotted half of the area of Plot No.312 in the Chak of respondent No.4. I find the Chak proposed by the Assistant Settlement Consolidation Officer and Joint Director of Consolidation is correct. I find no illegality or perversity in the impugned judgment. 9. I find the Chak proposed by the Assistant Settlement Consolidation Officer and Joint Director of Consolidation is correct. I find no illegality or perversity in the impugned judgment. 9. Lastly, the learned counsel for the petitioner Sri M.S. Tyagi urged that the Talika annexed with Assistant Settlement Consolidation Officer does not show that even half area of the Plot No.312 has been proposed to the petitioner while the respondent No.4 admit this fact and it also reveals from the order of Assistant Settlement Consolidation Officer that half area of the Plot No. 312 was proposed to petitioner and half area has been proposed to the respondent No.4 and it has been confirmed by the respondent No.1. If in the impugned order there is clerical mistake in Talika shown, be corrected as per order of the Assistant Settlement Consolidation Officer. 10. With the said observation, the writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs.