Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 2955 (ALL)

Bijendra Singh v. Dy. Director of Consolidation

2014-09-22

ANJANI KUMAR MISHRA

body2014
JUDGMENT Anjani Kumar Mishra, J. 1. Heard Shri Arun Kumar Singh, learned Counsel for the petitioner, Shri Brijesh Shukla, for the respondent No. 4, Shri Ashok Kumar Singh, for the respondent No. 7, and Shri A.K. Pandey, for the respondent No. 8. This writ petition arises out of proceedings for allotment of chaks and is directed against the order dated 21.8.2014 passed in Revision No. 56/01 (Naresh v. Shaukeen and others) whereby an earlier order dated 12.6.2003 has been reiterated. 2. After the order dated 12.6.2003 was passed by the Revisional Court, a restoration application was filed which was allowed and thereafter the parties were heard. After hearing the parties the DDC has maintained the earlier order dated 12.6.2003. Hence this writ petition. 3. Shri Arun Kumar Singh, learned Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that by the order impugned, the petitioner has been allotted an "L" shaped chak. Referring to section 19 of the Act he has submitted that the section lays down that rectangular chaks be allotted and, therefore, the order impugned is contrary to the provisions of law and cannot be sustained. 4. The second submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that his tube-well exists in plot No. 422 and is his only source of irrigation. On account of the modification made in his chak by the impugned order certain land has been included therein whose level is higher than the plot wherein his private source of irrigation is situated and, therefore, this newly allotted area cannot be irrigated from his tube-well. His next submission is that Shaukeen, respondent No. 7 would have been accommodated without disturbing the chaks of anyone else. The last submission is that in the revision filed by Naresh no demand has been made against the petitioner and, therefore, the petitioner's chak has been wrongly disturbed. 5. A supplementary affidavit was filed by the petitioner showing the spot possession as it exists in pursuance of the order impugned. 6. Shri A.K. Pandey, learned Counsel for the respondent No. 8 has submitted that it is clear from the perusal of this map filed alongwith the supplementary affidavit that a chak has been carved out in the name of the wife of the petitioner on plot No. 423. 6. Shri A.K. Pandey, learned Counsel for the respondent No. 8 has submitted that it is clear from the perusal of this map filed alongwith the supplementary affidavit that a chak has been carved out in the name of the wife of the petitioner on plot No. 423. The petitioner has been allotted chak on plot No. 424 and another chak on plot No. 422 and, therefore, the chak of the petitioner's wife exists between the chaks of the petitioner and for all practical purposes, these three chaks on plot Nos. 422, 423 & 424 make up on contiguous compact piece of land and, therefore, the contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the chak allotted to him is "L" shaped is factually incorrect. He has further submitted that a small strip of land adjoining the chak road has been allotted to Shaukeen out of plot No. 421. This plot, namely, plot No. 421 was the original holding of the Shaukeen. 7. Shri A.K. Singh, learned Counsel for the respondent No. 7 has submitted that the location of the source of irrigation namely, tube-well of the petitioner has not been disclosed in the writ petition. He has further reiterated the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the respondent No. 8. 8. Even Shri Brijesh Shukla, Counsel for the respondent No. 4 has adopted the arguments raised by the other learned Counsel for the respondents. 9. I have considered and submissions made by the learned Counsel for the parties and have perused the record. From a perusal of the map filed alongwith the supplementary affidavit it emerges that it is no doubt true that the chak that has been allotted to the petitioned on plot No. 422 is "L" shaped. However, it is also clear that the dimensions of this "L" shaped chak are not such that would hamper cultivation therein. Both limbs of this "L" shaped chak are equally broad and, therefore, the petitioner does not appear to be suffering any injury merely because the chak allotted to him is "L" shaped. Moreover in view of what has been submitted by Shri A.K. Pandey that the chaks allotted to the petitioner on plot Nos. Both limbs of this "L" shaped chak are equally broad and, therefore, the petitioner does not appear to be suffering any injury merely because the chak allotted to him is "L" shaped. Moreover in view of what has been submitted by Shri A.K. Pandey that the chaks allotted to the petitioner on plot Nos. 422 and 424 are separated by plot No. 423 which comprises the chak of the petitioner's wife, further weaken of the case of the petitioner regarding his contention that the chak given to him is "L" shaped and, therefore, I find no substance in the first contention raised by the learned Counsel for the petitioner. 10. As regards, the second submission that the newly allotted area in the chak on plot No. 422 is higher in level than the plot wherein the tube-well of the petitioner is situated, it would suffice to state that no such plea was raised by the petitioner in the writ petition. The only averment in this regard can be found in paragraph 2 of the supplementary affidavit which is quoted herein below: "That by way of present supplementary affidavit, deponent is bringing on record the chak map/Chaktarashi prepared after the impugned order dated 21.8.2014 which shows that almost rectangular chak of the petitioner has became 'L' shaped and new Udan chak is also difficult to irrigate from the present source of irrigation in Chak No. 422 adjacent to the road situated in Gata No. 433. Copy of Chak map/chaktarashi prepared after the impugned order dated 21.8.2014 is being annexed herewith and is being marked as Annexure No. SA-1 to this supplementary affidavit." 11. It, therefore, emerges that the only averment made by the petitioner is that he has been allotted an odan chak and it is difficult to irrigate it from the private source of irrigation in plot No. 422. There is absolutely no averment on record that the level of newly allotted area is higher to the plot wherein the alleged source of irrigation exists and, therefore, even this contentions raised by the learned Counsel for the petitioner cannot be accepted. 12. As regards the last submission that no demand was raised by the revisionist against the petitioner, it may be recorded that chaks have been modified to allot Shaukeen some land alongwith chak road. 12. As regards the last submission that no demand was raised by the revisionist against the petitioner, it may be recorded that chaks have been modified to allot Shaukeen some land alongwith chak road. Such allotment appears to have been made on the ground that this land was the original holding of the Shaukeen. Although the learned Counsel for the petitioner has disputed this contention and has urged that plot No. 422 was not the original holding of the Shaukeen, however, there is no material on record to substantiate this allegation either way and, therefore, even this contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is repelled. Even otherwise, it is not the case of the petitioner that he was entitled to this road side land and, therefore, he cannot object to such allotment in favour of Shaukeen. 13. From the above discussions, it is, therefore, clear that the contentions raised by the learned Counsel for the petitioner lack force. The writ petition, therefore, is totally devoid of merits and is, accordingly dismissed.