Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 3623 (ALL)

Sukhdeo Singh v. D. D. C.

2014-12-04

ANJANI KUMAR MISHRA

body2014
JUDGMENT Anjani Kumar Mishra, J. 1. Heard Shri Rakesh Singh, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Shri S.K. Pundeer for the contesting respondents. The writ petition arises out of proceedings for allotment of chaks and is directed against the order dated 5.1.2004 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation, respondent No. 1 and the order dated 26.12.2002 passed by the Settlement Officer, Consolidation, respondent No. 2. 2. The petitioner is holder of chak No. 638, respondent No. 3 is holder of chak No. 106, respondent No. 4 is holder of chak No. 256, respondent No. 6 is holder of chak No. 263 while respondent No. 7 is holder of chak No. 377. 3. It appears that against the chaks proposed at the Assistant Consolidation Officer stage, the petitioner preferred an objection under section 20(1) of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act claiming allotment on plot No. 923, his largest original holding. The Consolidation Officer by his order dated 30.4.2000 allowed the objection. 4. Against this order Kripal Singh filed appeal No. 355 while another appeal being appeal No. 262 was filed by Balbir Singh. Kripal and Balbir Singh are respondent Nos. 3 and 4 respectively, in the writ petition. The appeals were partly allowed by the Settlement Officer, Consolidation vide order dated 26.10.2002. 5. Aggrieved by this order, the petitioner preferred revision being revision No. 149/729. The grievance raised in the revision was that by the appellate order the allotment made in favour of the petitioner on his largest original holding namely, plot No. 923, had been disturbed and such plot had been allotted to the respondents 3 to 6. 6. The Deputy Director of Consolidation by his order dated 5.1.2004 dismissed the revision and hence this writ petition. 7. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that he was entitled to a chak on his largest original holding, namely, plot No. 923 which has been allotted to the respondents who had no concern therewith. 8. The second contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the Deputy Director of Consolidation did not make any spot inspection while passing the impugned order. Thirdly, it has been submitted that the petitioner possessed two borings, one existing on plot No. 923/1 which was not entered in the revenue record and another on plot No. 923/3 which was duly entered in the revenue records. Thirdly, it has been submitted that the petitioner possessed two borings, one existing on plot No. 923/1 which was not entered in the revenue record and another on plot No. 923/3 which was duly entered in the revenue records. He, therefore, submits that since the private sources of irrigation existed in plot No. 923 which was also his largest original holding, the same should have been allotted in his chak and in distributing this chak, the respondent No. 1 has committed patent illegality. It has lastly been submitted that plot No. 77 was largest original holding of the contesting respondents who permitted the same to be allotted to their co-sharers while demanding a chak of the largest original holding of the petitioner and, therefore, their prayer should have been rejected. 9. Shri S.K. Pundeer, learned Counsel for the contesting respondents, relying upon the observations made in the impugned order, submitted that the revision has been rightly dismissed. The petitioner is not at a loss and the chaks allotted to him are in accordance with the legal requirements under the Act and, therefore, the order impugned calls for no interference. 10. I have considered the rival submission made by the learned Counsel for the parties and have perused the record. 11. The Deputy Director of Consolidation has recorded that the boring on plot No. 923/3 has been allotted in the chak of Balbir who was not impleaded in the revision and, therefore, the relief prayed for in the revision filed by the petitioner could not be granted. I find no illegality in this reasoning of the DDC. The Deputy Director of Consolidation has further recorded that certain areas of plot No. 923 has been allotted to others only with a view to make their chaks rectangular. He has, therefore, recorded that any modification in such allotment will de-shape of chaks allotted to the contesting respondents. It has also been recorded that the petitioner has been allotted chaks on his original holdings and against an area of 1.4984 hectares comprised in his original holdings, he has been allotted chaks of 1.3893 hectares which its well within the permissible limits and further that the chaks proposed to the petitioner are rectangular having facilities for chak nali and chak road. Therefore, the appellate order was found to be a reasonable and balanced order. Therefore, the appellate order was found to be a reasonable and balanced order. On the aforesaid reasoning, the revision of the petitioner has been dismissed. 12. The submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioner that exclusion of plot No. 923 from his chak and its allotment in the chaks of the contesting respondent is illegal, has no substance as observed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation. This allotment has been made to make the chaks of the contesting respondent allotted on their original holdings, rectangular and there is no illegality in such an approach. 13. In so far as the submission of learned Counsel for the petitioner that the Deputy Director of Consolidation passed the impugned order without making a spot inspection it would be relevant to observe that there is no material on record indicating that any application was filed by the petitioner requiring the Deputy Director of Consolidation to make a spot inspection. It is settled law that there is no mandatory requirement for the Deputy Director of Consolidation for making a spot inspection, while deciding the chak revisions unless and until a request in writing in this regard is made by the parties. Since no such written request appears to have been made, even this submission of learned Counsel for the petitioner lacks merits. 14. As far as the alleged boring of the petitioner on plot No. 923/1 is concerned, the same is not entered in the revenue record especially CH Form-2A. This fact implies that this boring was not in existence on the start of the consolidation operations and has been installed during the consolidation operations and, therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to any benefit of the same. Accordingly and for the reasons given above, I find no substance in the submissions of learned Counsel for the petitioners. The writ petition lacks merits and is, accordingly dismissed. However there will be no order as to costs.