Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 35 (ALL)

Ramjeet v. D. D. C.

2014-01-06

RAM SURAT RAM (MAURYA)

body2014
JUDGMENT Ram Surat Ram (Maurya),J.: - 1. Heard Sri N.L. Pandey, for the petitioner and Sri P.N. Kushwaha, who has filed caveat on behalf of respondents-4, 7 and 11. The writ petition has been filed against the order of Deputy Director of Consolidation (respondent-1) dated 30.11.2013, passed in chak allotment proceedings, under U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). 2. Plot 109 (area 0.334 hectare) was the original holdings of Ramjeet and others (chak holders 238). Ramjeet and others (chak holders 238) was proposed single chak on plots 109 (area 0.140 hectare) and 113 (area 0.178 hectare). Plots 95, 110, 111, 113 and 146 were original holdings of Harinath Sudesh, Lochan, Kanhaiya, Sechan (respondents-4, 7, 8, 9 and 11) and Smt. Parwati and Harihar. Smt. Parwati, Subhash, Harinath, Lochan, Kanhaiya, Sechan and Harihar filed their separate objections (registered as Case Nos. 456, 457, 358, 459, 460, 461 and 462) under Section 20 of the Act, claiming for allotment of their chaks on plots 110 and 113. The Consolidation Officer, consolidated and decided the aforesaid objections by order dated 05.09.2012 and held that it was not possible to allot chaks to all the co-tenure holders of plots 110 and 113. However, he partly allowed the objections. 3. Harihar filed an appeal (registered as Appeal No. 858), Madan Mohan filed an appeal (registered as Appeal No. 861), Lochan filed an appeal (registered as Appeal No. 865), Kanhaiya filed an appeal (registered as Appeal No. 866), Sechan filed an appeal (registered as Appeal No. 862), Subhash filed an appeal (registered as Appeal No. 864) and Hari Nath filed an appeal (registered as Appeal No. 863) from the aforesaid order. Settlement Officer, Consolidation, consolidated the aforesaid appeals and heard together, who by order dated 04.07.2013, held that the appellants were allotted chaks on their original holdings. In case chak of Ramjeet and others (chak holder 238) is affected then several chaks would be affected. He therefore taking some area of plot 113, which was left as bachat land partly satisfied the demand of the appellants. 4. In case chak of Ramjeet and others (chak holder 238) is affected then several chaks would be affected. He therefore taking some area of plot 113, which was left as bachat land partly satisfied the demand of the appellants. 4. Harinath filed a revision (registered as Revision No. 1181 of 2013-14), Subhash filed a revision (registered as Revision No. 1184 of 2013-14), Lochan filed a revision (registered as Revision No. 1185 of 2013-14), Harihar filed a revision (registered as Revision No. 1173 of 2013-14), Harinath and others filed a revision (registered as Revision No. 1189 of 2013-14), Kanhaiya filed a revision (registered as Revision No. 1183 of 2013-14), Madan Mohan filed a revision (registered as Revision No. 1180 of 2013-14) and Sechan filed a revision (registered as Revision No. 1182 of 2013-14) from the aforesaid order. These revisions were consolidated and heard by Deputy Director of Consolidation, who by order dated 30.11.2013 allowed Revision No. 1173, 1180, 1181, 1182, 1183, 1184 and 1185 and dismissed Revision No. 1189. By this order plot no. 113, which was earlier allotted in chak no. 238 was taken from that chak and allotted to Harinath, Harihar, Subhash and Sudesh and Madan Mohan and in lieu of it the petitioner was allotted plots 109 (area 0.144 hectare), 107 (area 0.017 hectare) and 108 (area 0.092 hectare) (total area 0.253 hectare). Hence, this writ petition has been filed. 5. The counsel for the petitioner submitted that plot no. 109 was the original holding of the petitioner. Plot 113 was lying in the vicinity of the original holding of the petitioner as such the petitioner was allotted a single chak on plots 109 (area 0.140 hectare) and 113 (area 0.178 hectare). Settlement Officer Consolidation while rejecting the demands of the respondents for allotment of their chak on plot 113 recorded reasons that in case their demands were accepted then chaks of various persons would be affected. However, Deputy Director of Consolidation without recording any findings and without considering the reasons given by Settlement Officer Consolidation has disturbed the chak of the petitioner. Plots 107 and 108 which are now allotted in the chak of the petitioner are the land of low quality. Due to allotment of these plots in the chak of the petitioner, material prejudice has been caused to the petitioner. The Order of Deputy Director of Consolidation is illegal and liable to be set aside. Plots 107 and 108 which are now allotted in the chak of the petitioner are the land of low quality. Due to allotment of these plots in the chak of the petitioner, material prejudice has been caused to the petitioner. The Order of Deputy Director of Consolidation is illegal and liable to be set aside. 6. I have considered the arguments of counsel for the parties and examined the record. First question arises for consideration is the scope of jurisdiction of Deputy Director of Consolidation in revision under Section 48 of the Act which is quoted below: - "48. Revision and reference.--(1) The Director of Consolidation may call for and examine the record of any case decided or proceedings taken by any subordinate authority for the purpose of satisfying himself as to the regularity of the proceedings; or as to the correctness, legality or propriety of any order other than an interlocutory order passed by such authority in the case or proceedings and may, after allowing the parties concerned an opportunity of being heard, make such order in the case or proceedings as he thinks fit. Explanation (3).--The power under this section to examine the correctness, legality or propriety of any order includes the power to examine any finding, whether of fact or law, recorded by any subordinate authority and also includes the power to re-appreciate any oral or documentary evidence. (Added by U.P. Act No. 3 of 2002 w.e.f. 10.11.1980)" 7. Supreme Court in Sheo Nand Vs. DDC and others, AIR 2000 SC 1141 held that section 48 gives very wide powers to the Deputy Director of Consolidation. It enables him either suo motu on his own motion or on the application of any person to consider the propriety, legality, regularity and correctness of all the proceedings held under the Act and to pass appropriate orders. These powers have been conferred on the Deputy Director of Consolidation in the widest terms so that the claims of the parties under the Act may be effectively adjudicated upon and determined so as to confer finality to the rights of the parties and the revenue records may be prepared accordingly. Supreme Court again in Guljar Singh v. Dy. These powers have been conferred on the Deputy Director of Consolidation in the widest terms so that the claims of the parties under the Act may be effectively adjudicated upon and determined so as to confer finality to the rights of the parties and the revenue records may be prepared accordingly. Supreme Court again in Guljar Singh v. Dy. Director (Consolidation), (2009) 12 SCC 590 , relied upon the case of Sheo Nand (supra) and held that from the above quoted observations of this Court in Sheo Nand, it is clear that the DDC has wide range of discretionary powers mandated under the Act by which he could proceed to modify even the basic year entries if found to be wrongly derived at. 8. Due to some contradictory decisions, Explanation (3) has been added by which jurisdiction of Deputy Director of Consolidation has been specifically clarified that power of Deputy Director of Consolidation under this section to examine the correctness, legality or propriety of any order includes the power to re-appreciate any oral or documentary evidence. It is general rule of judicial system that interference by higher court with the findings of the subordinate authority are warranted, where the findings are perverse in the sense that they are not supported by the evidence brought on record or they are against the law or where they suffer from the vice of procedural irregularity. As Deputy Director of Consolidation has been specifically conferred with the powers to re-appreciate any oral or documentary evidence as such the order of Deputy Director of Consolidation cannot be set aside only for the reasons that it has not considered the reasons recorded by subordinate authority, if the judgment is otherwise not illegal. In case of contrary view, legislative intention of giving wide power and again explaining the power by Explanation (3) will be frustrated. 9. The principles have been provided under Section 19 of the Act for preparation of Consolidation Scheme. Relevant portion of Section 19 of the Act is quoted below: -. "Section 19. Conditions to be fulfilled by a Consolidation Scheme.- (1) A Consolidation Scheme shall fulfill the following conditions, namely,- (e) Every tenure holder is, as far as possible, allotted a compact area at the place where he holds the largest part of his holding;" 10. Relevant portion of Section 19 of the Act is quoted below: -. "Section 19. Conditions to be fulfilled by a Consolidation Scheme.- (1) A Consolidation Scheme shall fulfill the following conditions, namely,- (e) Every tenure holder is, as far as possible, allotted a compact area at the place where he holds the largest part of his holding;" 10. Admittedly plot 109 was the original holding of the petitioner and plots 110 and 113 were the original holdings of the contesting respondents. The contesting respondents, who are very small tenure holders were demanding for allotment of their chaks on plots 110 and 113. Settlement Officer Consolidation denied their demand only for the reasons that chaks of several persons will be disturbed. Deputy Director of Consolidation by taking plot 113 from the chak of the petitioner and allotting 107 (area 0.017 hectare) and 108 (area 0.092 hectare), in the chak of the petitioner, which are lying in the vicinity of the original holdings of the petitioner satisfied the demands of various small tenure holders. Deputy Director of Consolidation found that the petitioner was allotted uran chak on plot 113 while demand of the contesting respondents were for allotment of their original holding in their chak. Thus Deputy Director of Consolidation has given reason for allowing the revision. Reason given by Settlement Officer Consolidation was not valid reason under the law. The arguments of the counsel for the petitioner that material prejudice has been caused to the petitioner is not liable to be accepted as the petitioner was allotted chak on his original holding taking small area of the land adjacent to his original holding. 11. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the order of Deputy Director of Consolidation does not suffer from any illegality. The writ petition has no merit and is dismissed.