Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 826 (ALL)

Raju and Another v. D. D. C. and Others

2014-03-10

RAM SURAT RAM (MAURYA)

body2014
Ram Surat Ram (Maurya),J. Heard Sri Pankaj Kumar Tyagi and Sri R.P. Singh for the respondents. 2. The writ petition has been filed against the orders of Deputy Director of Consolidation dated 9.2.2010 and 3.1.2014 passed in chak allotment proceedings under UP Consolidation of Holdings Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act). 3. The dispute is between the parties in respect of allotment of chak on plot no. 609 in which the petitioners had ¼ share. From the stage of Assistant Consolidation Officer, two chaks were proposed to the petitioners i.e. the first chak was proposed on plot no. 437 and 438 and the second chak was proposed to him on plot no. 1688. Both the chaks were on the original holding of the petitioners and petitioners did not file any objection against the proposed chak before the Consolidation Officer. 4. The petitioners sold an area of 5 bigha, 7 biswa of plot no. 1697 and an area of 2 bigha, 4 biswa and 12 biswansi of plot no. 1697 to Viru and Smt Usha Devi W/o Kiranpal . In the year 2007 names of the transformer were mutated in CH Form 23 of the petitioners. Deep Chandra (respondent-19) who is also co-sharer of the petitioners, sold his share of plot no. 1697 to Smt. Munesh , wife of Viru. Viru therefore begun a demand that he and his wife be allotted a chak on plot no. 1676 so that their chak may be allotted adjacent to each other. Accordingly, Viru and Smt. Munesh both filed a revision before the Deputy Director of Consolidation. Deputy Director of Consolidation by the impugned order dated 9.2.2010 has deducted an area of plot no. 1697 etc. from the chak of the petitioners 6 bigha and 10 biswa and after adjusting the area sold by the petitioners, he was allotted an area of 4 biswa 18 dhur on plot no. 437 which was added in first chak of the petitioners. The petitioners filed an application for recall of the aforesaid order on the ground that the Deputy Director of Consolidation has passed the order without giving any opportunity of hearing to the petitioners and the order was exparte. 437 which was added in first chak of the petitioners. The petitioners filed an application for recall of the aforesaid order on the ground that the Deputy Director of Consolidation has passed the order without giving any opportunity of hearing to the petitioners and the order was exparte. The recall application was pending and hearing of the recall application was delayed then the writ petition was filed by the petitioners in which the Deputy Director of Consolidation was directed to decide the recall application and thereafter the recall application was heard and Deputy Director of Consolidation by order dated 3.1.2014 held that as the several revisions were consolidated and decided by a common order dated 9.2.2010, as such, the order passed in the revisions of the Viru and Smt. Munesh, in which alone the recall application was filed, could not be recalled, as the amendment chart prepared in pursuance of the order dated 9.2.2010 is inter-connected and could not be amended. On this ground the recall application was rejected. Hence this writ petition has been filed. 5. The counsel for the petitioners submits that plot no. 609 was the original holding of the petitioners and from the stage of Settlement Officer, Consolidation, the petitioners were given a chak on plot no. 609 of the area of 3 bigha and 2 biswa. However, Deputy Director of Consolidation has illegally disturbed the chak of the petitioners on plot no 609. He submits that the petitioners sold plot no. 1697 alone as this plot was lying at the long distance from the residence of the petitioners. In such circumstances, the only area/valuation of plot no. 1697 alone was liable to be deducted from the chak of the petitioners which was sold by them. In the garb of deducting the area of plot no. 1697, the chak of the petitioners on plot no. 609 has been illegally disturbed. He further submitted that plot no. 609 was the original holding of the petitioners and situated adjacent to the abadi, as such, the petitioners were rightly allotted chak on this plot. The Deputy Director of Consolidation has illegally disturbed the chak of the petitioners without giving any opportunity of hearing to the petitioners. 6. In reply to the aforesaid arguments the counsel for the respondents submits that plot no. The Deputy Director of Consolidation has illegally disturbed the chak of the petitioners without giving any opportunity of hearing to the petitioners. 6. In reply to the aforesaid arguments the counsel for the respondents submits that plot no. 609/2 was the original holding of the respondent-19 also by taking an area of 1 bigha 19 biswa of plot no. 609 and 612, it was allotted in the chak of Deep Chandra (respondent-19) as he was a co-sharer in this plot. Plot no. 609 is not adjacent to abadi. He submits that initially the petitioners themselves were satisfied with their chak of plot no. 437 and 1697 and did not file any objection for allotment of chak of plot no. 609. Allegation that plot no. 609 is adjacent to abadi has been made either in the recall application or in the writ petition, it is only in the rejoinder affidavit the allegation is being made. 7. I have considered the arguments of the counsel for the parties and examined the record. A perusal of order of Deputy Director of Consolidation dated 9.2.2010 shows that the second chak as well as the third chak of the petitioners on plot no. 609 were affected. Due to deduction of area which has been sold by the petitioners to Viru and Smt. Usha Devi. However, while deducting the area of the sale deed their third chak on plot no. 609 has been affected. Deep Chandra was allotted chak on this plot who is the co-sharer of the petitioners. The valuation which was reduced from this chak was enhanced on the first chak of the petitioners on plot no. 437. Thus the area which has been deducted from plot no. 609 has been allotted to the co-sharer of the petitioners who was entitled for allotment of this plot and the petitioners have been allotted chak on their original holding. 8. The importance of allotment of chak on plot no. 609, as is being shown by way of allegation in the rejoinder affidavit, is not liable to be accepted for the fact that initially the petitioners have not raised any objection for allotment of chak on plot no. 609, although, in the provisional consolidation scheme they were not given chak on this plot and the allegation that it is adjacent to abadi has not been made either in the recall application or in the writ petition. 609, although, in the provisional consolidation scheme they were not given chak on this plot and the allegation that it is adjacent to abadi has not been made either in the recall application or in the writ petition. In such circumstances, the petitioners have been allotted chak on their original holding. No interference is required by this Court. 9. The writ petition has no merit and it is dismissed. _______________