Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 916 (ALL)

Surendra v. D. D. C.

2014-03-24

RAM SURAT RAM (MAURYA)

body2014
JUDGMENT Ram Surat Ram (Maurya),J. Heard Sri D.B. Yadav for the petitioners and Sri A.K. Singh for the respondents. 2. The writ petition has been filed against the order of the Consolidation Officer dated 3.10.2011 and Deputy Director of Consolidation dated 3.3.2014 passed in proceeding under Section 42A of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953.(hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') by which the correction in the final map prepared during consolidation operation has been made. 3. The required correction is in respect of old plot no.5903. According to the respondents plot no.5903 was Gaon Sabha land and was out of consolidation during consolidation operation. A road was carved out through plot no.5903 dividing this plot into two parts and area of 0.620 hectare of plot no.5903 was lying in east of the road. However, in the consolidation map new number 1507 has been allotted to old plot no.5903 and its area has been mentioned as 3.265 hectare although an area 0.620 hectare of plot no.5903 was lying in east of the road but this area has been shown in the chak of the petitioners in the final consolidation map due to which the correction was required. The Consolidator made a spot inspection and submitted a report that although in old plot no.5903 a road was carved out dividing this plot into two part an area of 0.620 hectare of old plot no.5903 was lying in east of the road but in the final consolidation map new number 1507 was shown in west of the road. Thus an area of 0.620 hectare, which was lying in the east of the road, was liable to be allotted a new number in the map. The Consolidator further found that area of the chak of the petitioners has been increased to the extent of 0.620 hectare in the consolidation map. On the basis of the aforesaid report of the Consolidator, the Consolidation Officer by order dated 3.10.2011 directed to correct the final map prepared during consolidation. The petitioners filed a revision against the aforesaid order. The Consolidator further found that area of the chak of the petitioners has been increased to the extent of 0.620 hectare in the consolidation map. On the basis of the aforesaid report of the Consolidator, the Consolidation Officer by order dated 3.10.2011 directed to correct the final map prepared during consolidation. The petitioners filed a revision against the aforesaid order. In the revision, the petitioners has raised only three points i.e. (1) the village has already been notified under Section 52 of the Act on 21.1.2011as such proceeding for correction in the map can only be taken up under Section 28 of U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901; (2)the application moved before the Consolidation Officer under Section 42A of the Act was not maintainable; and (3) in any case such order could only be passed by the District Deputy Director of Consolidation. 4. So far as the factual controversy in respect of required correction as pointed out in the report of the Consolidator is concerned the same has not been challenged in the revision. The Deputy Director of Consolidation by the impugned order dated 3.3.2014 found that the final consolidation map has been prepared by the consolidation authorities as such if any correction is required in it then the Consolidation Officer has jurisdiction to correct it and there is no effect of the notification under Section 52 of the Act upon the jurisdiction of the Consolidation Officer to correct it as such no illegality has been found in the order of the Consolidation Officer and revision filed by the petitioner has been dismissed. 5. The counsel for the petitioner submits that that map of the plot in dispute shows that the road was carved out in the extreme east of plot no.5903 leaving no area of this plot in east of it. The chak of the petitioner was carved out through old plot nos.5910, 5911, 5912, 5913, 5915, 5928 and 5929, total area 1.393 hectare and in the map which is attached as Annexure 1 to the writ petition the plot no.5912 and 5913 were lying by the side of the road. This map has been challenged by the counsel for the respondents. This map has been challenged by the counsel for the respondents. He submits that the map, which has been filed on page 55 of the writ petition is showing the correct position of the road and a substantial part of plot no.5903 is lying in the east of it but in the map the demarcation of land has been rubbed out and the numbers 2937 and 2938 found mentioned in it. He has also produced a certified copy of the map showing that road was carved out through plot no.5903 in the middle of it it while substantial portion of plot no.5903 was lying in east of the road. Thus, no part of the chak of the petitioner was lying on the road. 6. I have considered the arguments of the counsel for the petitioners and examined the record. 7. The correctness of the report of the Consolidator as well as finding recorded by the Consolidation Officer in his order have not been challenged in the revision. Only the jurisdiction of consolidation authorities to correct the final consolidation map has been challenged. In view of the provision of Section 42A of the Act which has overriding effect on all other provisions, the consolidation authorities have been authorised to make any correction in the records prepared during consolidation. Since the map has also been prepared during consolidation, the Consolidation Officer was fully authorised to make correction in it. The finding of fact recorded by the Consolidation Officer that an area of 0.620 hectare of plot no.5903 was lying in the east of the road does not suffer from any illegality. There is no merit in the writ petition. It is dismissed.