Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 3355 (ALL)

Rama Shanker v. D. D. C.

2014-11-11

ANJANI KUMAR MISHRA

body2014
JUDGMENT Anjani Kumar Mishra, J. 1. Heard Sri V.D. Ojha, learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the state-respondents. None has appeared for the contesting respondents. The petition arises out of proceedings for allotment of chaks and is directed against the order dated 26.9.1984 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation, respondent No. 1. 2. The petitioner is holder of chak No. 314 while the respondents 2 and 3 are joint holders of chak No. 208. The parties are co-tenure holders, the share of the petitioner in the original holding being 2/3 while that of the respondents 2 and 3 was 1/3. 3. The objection under section 20 was filed by the contesting respondents 2 and 3. It has been stated by learned Counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was not a party to the said objection. The Consolidation Officer by his order reduced the number of chaks proposed to the contesting respondents from 2 to 1 and in the process the number of chaks of the petitioner was increased from 2 to 3. On coming to know of the order, the petitioners are alleged to have filed an appeal, which was allowed by the Settlement Officer, Consolidation. The order of the Consolidation Officer was reversed and the parties were relegated to the position as existing at the stage of the Assistant Consolidation Officer. Aggrieved by the appellate order, the contesting respondents preferred a revision, which has been allowed by the impugned order, as a consequence whereof, the parties have been relegated to the position as existing in pursuance of the order passed by the Consolidation Officer. 4. The contention of learned Counsel for the petitioner is that by the impugned order, he has been allotted three chaks, one of which is a narrow strip of land, which cannot be cultivated. The second submission of learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the Settlement Officer, Consolidation had passed the order in favour of the petitioner after making spot inspection. The Deputy Director of Consolidation on the contrary has reversed this order without making a spot inspection and, therefore, the order impugned is unsustainable. The second submission of learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the Settlement Officer, Consolidation had passed the order in favour of the petitioner after making spot inspection. The Deputy Director of Consolidation on the contrary has reversed this order without making a spot inspection and, therefore, the order impugned is unsustainable. The last submission of learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the contesting respondents in their objection filed before the Consolidation Officer had not raised any grievance against the chak proposed to the petitioner and, therefore, the chak proposed to him could not have been altered and such alteration made by the Consolidation Officer was illegal, besides being ex-parte. As regards the submission that the petitioner was not party to the proceedings before the Consolidation Officer and his chaks were modified, it would suffice to state that at the subsequent stages, orders have been passed after hearing the petitioner and, therefore, the initial defect, if any, stands cured. Admittedly, the order impugned have been passed after hearing the petitioner and, therefore, this submission lacks force. The second submission made is that the Deputy Director of Consolidation has reversed the order passed by the Settlement Officer, Consolidation, which had been passed after making a spot inspection, and such reversal is without the Deputy Director of Consolidation having made a spot inspection. Under the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, the Consolidation Officer as also the Settlement Officer, Consolidation in chak allotment proceedings are necessarily required to make a spot inspection before passing the orders. There is no such mandatory requirement under the Act insofar as the Deputy Director of Consolidation is concerned. It has neither been argued nor averred in the writ petition that any application had been filed by any of the parties before the Revisional Court requiring a spot inspection. Therefore, since the petitioner never applied to the Deputy Director of Consolidation for making a spot inspection, the order impugned cannot be faulted on this ground. 5. As regards the submission that one of the chaks that has been proposed to the petitioner by means of the impugned order is a narrow strip of land, which is not fit for cultivation, it may be noted that the averments in this regard have been made in paragraphs 8 and 14 of the writ petition. 6. 5. As regards the submission that one of the chaks that has been proposed to the petitioner by means of the impugned order is a narrow strip of land, which is not fit for cultivation, it may be noted that the averments in this regard have been made in paragraphs 8 and 14 of the writ petition. 6. A counter affidavit filed on behalf of contesting respondents is available on record and I have perused the same. The averments made in paragraph 8 of the writ petition have been replied in paragraph 10 of the counter affidavit. In this paragraph 10 of the counter affidavit, the averments made in paragraph 8 of the writ petition have been denied and it has also been stated that the averments that the chak related to the petitioner is a narrow strip of land is incorrect and that all the chaks of the petitioner are square in shape and easily cultivable and that allegations to the contrary are incorrect. 7. Again in paragraph 16 of the counter affidavit contents of paragraph 14 of the writ petition have been denied and it has been categorically averred that none of the chaks allotted to the petitioner is a narrow strip of land, which is not cultivable. It is, therefore, clear from the pleadings of the parties that the question as to whether the petitioner has been allotted a chak in the form of a narrow strip of land, is a disputed question of fact. Besides there is not enough material available on record that would enable this Court to decide this issue one way or the other. 8. The Deputy Director of Consolidation while passing the impugned order has allowed the revision filed by the contesting respondents on the reasoning that the petitioner was placed in an advantageous position having been allotted better quality land, and more than his entitlement thereto. Besides having been allotted better quality land, the petitioner was also allotted land near the village abadi and this inequitable allotment was being remedied by the impugned order. 9. I have carefully perused the entire writ petition and there is not even a whisper therein disputing these statements of fact recorded in the impugned order. Besides having been allotted better quality land, the petitioner was also allotted land near the village abadi and this inequitable allotment was being remedied by the impugned order. 9. I have carefully perused the entire writ petition and there is not even a whisper therein disputing these statements of fact recorded in the impugned order. Therefore, for all practical purposes, the reasoning given by the Deputy Director of Consolidation while passing the impugned order is not under challenge and for this reason alone, in my considered opinion, the petitioner is not entitled to any relief. 10. Accordingly and for the reasons given above, I find no good ground to interfere with the impugned order. The submissions made by learned Counsel for the petitioner have been found to be without force. The writ petition is therefore dismissed. There will however no order as to costs.