Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 992 (ALL)

SAUDAN SINGH v. D. D. C.

2011-04-19

A.P.SAHI

body2011
JUDGMENT Hon’ble A.P. Sahi, J.—Heard Sri Satendra Pratap Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Ayub Khan for Respondent No. 2 and Smt. Neelam Pandey for Respondent No. 3. Respondent Nos. 4 to 6 are real brother of respondent No. 3 and it is stated at the Bar that respondent No. 7 remained unrepresented as he appears to have died and is no longer alive. 2. Learned counsel submits that he does not seek any relief against respondent No. 7 or other respondent Nos. 3 to 6 at this stage. In view of this, it is not necessary to issue notice to respondent Nos. 4 to 7. Sri Ayub Khan for the respondent No. 2 and Smt. Neelam Pandey for respondent No. 3 state that they do not propose to file any counter-affidavit at this stage in view of the nature of the order that is proposed to be passed. 3. The challenge in this writ petition is to the order of the Deputy Director of Consolidation whereby he has reversed the order of Settlement Officer Consolidation in relation to the allotment of Chaks to the petitioner. The ground taken is that the petitioner has been allotted Plot Nos. 1600 and 1601 which are recorded as Pokhar (Pond) and Banjar (Barren) land respectively. Sri Singh has relied on CH Form 2-A to assert that the allotment seriously prejudices the rights of the petitioner. Learned counsel for Respondent No. 2-Ayub Khan submits that the petitioner at the level of Settlement Officer Consolidation had been allotted the original holding of the answering respondent No. 2 being Plot Nos. 1616 and 1617 and, therefore, aggrieved by the same, the revision has been preferred. Sri Khan submits that the original holding of the answering respondent also contains his Tubewell and it is for the said reason that the Deputy Director of Consolidation has reversed the order of Settlement Officer Consolidation. 4. Smt. Pandey for Respondent No. 3 states that the answering respondent Nos. 3 to 6 have not been affected so far and, therefore, so long as the said respondents are not affected, the petitioner’s grievances can be redressed by any other allotment other than Chaks allotted to the answering respondents. 5. 4. Smt. Pandey for Respondent No. 3 states that the answering respondent Nos. 3 to 6 have not been affected so far and, therefore, so long as the said respondents are not affected, the petitioner’s grievances can be redressed by any other allotment other than Chaks allotted to the answering respondents. 5. The contest, therefore, in this case appears to be between the petitioner and the respondent No. 2 at this stage inasmuch as the original holdings of Respondent No. 2 have been restored, but at the same time the petitioner has been allotted Plot Nos. 1600 and 1601 which are recorded as Pokhar and Banjar respectively. The contention, therefore, raised on behalf of the petitioner to that extent, that he could not have been allotted Pokhar and Banjar as against his original holdings, deserves to be re-examined as allotment of unfertile land is established. Accordingly, the order of the Deputy Director of Consolidation cannot be sustained to that extent. 6. So far as the allotment of Plot Nos. 1616 and 1617 which are the original holdings of Respondent No. 2, they also cannot be disturbed keeping in view the claim of respondent No. 2 which has been rightly upheld by the Deputy Director of Consolidation. 7. In such a situation, this writ petition is partly allowed for the reasons stated herein above and the order of the Deputy Director of Consolidation so far as it allots Plot Nos. 1600 and 1601 to the petitioner is concerned is set aside. The restoration of the original holding of Respondent No. 2 over Plot Nos. 1616 and 1617 is upheld. The order of the Settlement Officer Consolidation would also stand modified accordingly. The matter shall now be remitted to the Settlement Officer Consolidation, who shall proceed to examine the claim of the petitioner afresh keeping in view the fact that the petitioner does not deserve to be allotted Pokhar and Banjar land. The Settlement Officer Consolidation shall proceed to pass a fresh order after giving notice to any other parties who may likely be affected. The matter shall be decided as expeditiously as possible preferably within 3 months. 8. The writ petition is, accordingly, allowed to the extent indicated herein above. The parties shall maintain the status-quo of possession of their Chaks that were existing prior to the order passed by the Settlement Officer Consolidation. —————