Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 308 (ALL)

Vijay Kumar v. Deputy Director of Consolidation

2014-01-27

SIBGHAT ULLAH KHAN

body2014
JUDGMENT Sibghat Ullah Khan, J. 1. Heard Shri U.S. Sahai, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Shri Sanjeev Saxena, learned Counsel for O.P. No. 2 who appears through caveat. This writ petition is directed against order dated 12.11.2013 passed by D.D.C. Gonda in revision No. 912 of 2012-13/929 of 2013-14, Ram Asrey v. Ram Niwas. Initially the revision had been allowed on 21.4.1980. Against said order writ petition No. 1782 (Consolidation) of 1980 was filed in this High Court which was allowed on 26.11.2012 and matter was remanded to the D.D.C. Gonda. After remand D.D.C. Gonda through impugned order again allowed the revision and maintained its earlier order dated 21.4.1980. One of the reasons given in the impugned order is that through the earlier order dated 21.4.1980 changes in the chaks of several persons were made, however, apart from chakdar No. 24, i.e., Kamta the petitioner's predecessor in interest no other party had made any complaint/grievance. This reasoning is not very sound in view of the earlier remand order passed by this Court. The earlier writ petition had been filed by Kamta however during the pendency of the said writ petition he had died and was survived by Vijay Kumar adopted son, the present petitioner. Kamta had also sold the plots which had been given to him by the D.D.C. through order dated 21.4.1980 to his adopted son, the present petitioner. Earlier order of this Court is Annexure 6 to this writ petition. Initially in the revision Ram Asrey was applicant revisionist. O.P. No. 2 Shiv Nath Verma is his vendee. Earlier the writ petition was allowed only on the ground that the petitioner Kamta Prasad had not been impleaded in the revision initially but had been added as party after conclusion of the arguments of the revision. Accordingly without deciding anything on merit or touching the controversy the matter was remanded to be decided after hearing the petitioner. 2. It is mentioned in the impugned order that main dispute was regarding plot Nos. 2602, 2628 and 2614 etc. and both the parties, i.e., revisionist Ram Asrey chakdar No. 310 and opposite party Vijay Kumar (successor-in-interest of Kamta), chakdar No. 24 wanted chak on the said plots. 2. It is mentioned in the impugned order that main dispute was regarding plot Nos. 2602, 2628 and 2614 etc. and both the parties, i.e., revisionist Ram Asrey chakdar No. 310 and opposite party Vijay Kumar (successor-in-interest of Kamta), chakdar No. 24 wanted chak on the said plots. It is mentioned in the impugned order that on 8.1.1992, Kamta Chakdar No. 24 had sold the entire property which had been given to him by the order of the D.D.C. dated 21.4.1980 to Vijay Kumar, his adopted son, the present petitioner and in the revenue record the name of Vijay Kumar, present petitioner was entered. The land which had been allotted to him by the D.D.C. was given new plot No. 820. It is also mentioned that Kamta was allotted chak on his original plot Nos. 2796 and 2784 and plot Nos. 2602, 2628 and 2614 were not his original holdings, hence, he did not deserve allotment on the said plots. 3. One of the arguments of learned Counsel for petitioner is that reduction in area of Kamta was more than 60%. In para 20 of the writ petition it has been stated that initially total area of Kamta was 1.5 acre, however, in sector 12 he was given land of very high valuation having an area of 0.6 acres only and it was in violation of provision of U.P.C.H. Act where more than 25 % increase or decrease in area is not permissible. However, from contents of para 29 of the writ petition itself it is clear that Kamta was having other land also and it was not his total land. Under section 19 U.P.C.H. Act reduction or addition of more than 25% is not permissible in the total land held by the tenure-holder and not different pieces of land or lands situate in different sectors. Para 29 of the writ petition is quoted below That the petitioner is the adopted son of Kamta, son of Lakhpat, but in order to protect the land from any litigation, the said Kamta, (predecessor-in-interest of the petitioner) had executed a registered sale-deed dated 8.1.1992 in favour of the petitioner which was comprising of plots Nos. 141/103, 820/0.60 and 871/0.74 which included the plots in the Chak of Kamta in Sector 12 which have been illegally allotted to Ram Asrey by means of the impugned order. 141/103, 820/0.60 and 871/0.74 which included the plots in the Chak of Kamta in Sector 12 which have been illegally allotted to Ram Asrey by means of the impugned order. A true copy of the sale-deed dated 8.1.1992 is being annexed herewith as Annexure No. 11 to this writ petition. 4. From the above paragraph it is quite clear that through sale-deed dated 8.1.1992 Kamta the petitioner of the earlier writ petition sold to the petitioner of the present writ petition not only the land which had been granted to him by the D.D.C. through order of 1980 but also the land which had earlier been granted to him by S.O.C. but not by D.D.C. This was utterly illegal rather dishonest. The third plot mentioned in the above para, i.e., plot No. 820 area 0.6 acre is the same plot which was given to him by the D.D.C. through the order dated 21.4.1980. Kamta having sold the property allotted to him by D.D.C. could not challenge that order of the D.D.C. Petitioner, stepped into the shoes of Kamta on the basis of being adopted son. 5. Even though I do not agree with view of the Court below that revision could not be dismissed as long time had passed (33 years) and disturbing the chaks would affect several other persons and with the phraseology of the impugned order where it has been mentioned that order dated 21.4.1980 is revived, however, it will not make any difference on the ultimate judgment. Revision was bound to be allowed, firstly on the ground that the land which was allotted to Kamta after the revision was earlier allowed had been sold by him to the present petitioner and secondly without any rhyme or reason S.O.C. had granted chak to Kamta on the original holding of others, particularly of Shiv Nath, the vendor of O.P. No. 2 in this writ petition. 6. Accordingly, I do not find any such error in the impugned judgment which may require reversal of the same. Writ petition is therefore dismissed.