Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 286 (ALL)

Atar Singh v. State of U. P.

2014-01-22

ANJANI KUMAR MISHRA

body2014
JUDGMENT Anjani Kumar Mishra, J. 1. The petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking a writ of certiorari quashing the order dated 7.12.2013 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Badaun copy whereof is Annexure 1 to the writ petition. The order impugned has been passed in a revision filed by the respondent No. 5 against an order passed by the Settlement Officer Consolidation in proceedings for allotment of chaks. The petitioner is holder of chak Nos. 35 and 31 while the respondent No. 4 is holder of chak Nos. 521 and 499. 2. The petitioner not being satisfied with the chak proposed by the Assistant Consolidation Officer preferred an objection. The Consolidation Officer allowed the objection by his order dated 5.5.2012 against which Ramesh Chandra respondent No. 5 preferred an appeal. The Settlement Officer Consolidation vide order dated 27.7.2012 dismissed the appeal against which the revision No. 319/12-13 Ramesh Chandra v. Atar Singh and others was preferred under section 48 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953. The Deputy Director of Consolidation by his order dated 7.12.2013 has allowed the revision and hence this writ petition. 3. I have heard Sri Anil Bhushan learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Counsel for the respondent No. 5. 4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has assailed the order on the following grounds: (i) The order impugned amounts to review which power, the Deputy Director of Consolidation does not possess and therefore the order is wholly without jurisdiction. (ii) The revision was earlier allowed by the deputy Director of Consolidation vide order dated 26.12.2012 whereby the chak allotted to Ramesh Chandra were interchanged with that of Dharmwati, respondent No. 6. and the chak of the petitioner was left undisturbed. This order dated 26.12.2012 was recalled on an application filed by Dharmwati and thereafter the impugned order has been passed disturbing the chak of the petitioner. On the strength of the above, it has been submitted that since earlier order did not disturb the chak of the petitioner, the Deputy Director of Consolidation has committed manifest error in disturbing the chak of the petitioner in his subsequent order. (iii) The respondent had been allotted chak on his original holding and therefore there was no justification for disturbing the chak of the petitioner at the instance of the said respondent. 5. (iii) The respondent had been allotted chak on his original holding and therefore there was no justification for disturbing the chak of the petitioner at the instance of the said respondent. 5. A perusal of the impugned order reveals that the chak of the petitioner on plot Nos. 538 and 539 has been disturbed. The case of the revisionist opposite party No. 5 before the Revisional Court was that he had been proposed three chaks. He had prayed that the chak allotted on plot No. 121 be abolished and resultant valuation be adjusted in the third chak allotted on plot No. 538 etc. This prayer of the opposite party has been accepted by the impugned order. The impugned order records that the revisionist had 1/2 share in plot Nos. 538 and 539 having valuation equivalent to 60.30 paise. 6. The impugned order further records that the opposite party No. 5 had been allotted much more than his share in plot No. 121. His share is only 0.210 hectares while he had been allotted 0.409 hectares of this plot No. 121. The share of the petitioner, Chak holder No. 35 in plot Nos. 538 and 539 is only 1/4th and its equivalent valuation was 30.15 while he had been allotted valuation of 74.58 on this plot in the form of single chak. It is in the light of these facts that the second chak of the opposite party on plot No. 121 has been abolished and the valuation therein has been adjusted on plot No. 539 where the petitioner had been allotted land far is excess of his share. As a result of the aforesaid adjustment both the parties have been allotted two chaks each on their original plots commensurate to their shares in the said original plots. There is no illegality in the aforesaid adjustment made by the impugned order. 7. It is established on record that the Deputy Director of Consolidation had recalled his earlier order dated 26.12.2012 on an application filed by the respondent No. 6 and thereafter passed the impugned order after hearing all the parties. There is no dispute that the consolidation authorities have the power to recall an order passed without hearing a necessary party. It is also not disputed that the respondent No. 6 was a necessary party as her chak had been disturbed by the order dated 26.12.2012. There is no dispute that the consolidation authorities have the power to recall an order passed without hearing a necessary party. It is also not disputed that the respondent No. 6 was a necessary party as her chak had been disturbed by the order dated 26.12.2012. After allowing her restoration application and thereby setting aside the order passed on 26.12.2012 on the ground that it had been passed in violation of principles of natural justice, the matter has been decided afresh by the order impugned which therefore does not amount to reviewing the order dated 26.12.2012. It may further be recorded that the petitioner has not challenged the order of the Deputy Director of Consolidation whereby he had allowed the restoration application filed by Dharmwati and recalled his earlier order dated 26.12.2012. The first submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the order impugned amounts to review of the earlier order is therefore wholly misconceived and is repelled. 8. In my considered opinion the second and the third submissions made by the learned Counsel for the petitioner are also devoid of any merit. The adjustments to the chaks have been made by the Deputy Director of Consolidation for cogent reasons. The order impugned balances the equities between the parties and they both have been allotted chaks on their original holdings in accordance with their shares therein. In view of the aforesaid discussion, I find that the writ petition lacks merit and is accordingly dismissed.