Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 952 (ALL)

Ram Autar v. D. D. C. and Others

2014-03-26

RAM SURAT RAM (MAURYA)

body2014
Ram Surat Ram (Maurya),J. Heard Sri A.K. Sharma holding brief of Sri Manish Dev for the petitioner and Sri S.N. Singh for the respondents. 2. The writ petition has been filed against the orders of Consolidation Officer dated 20.2.2013, Settlement Officer, Consolidation dated 7.10.2013 and Deputy Director of Consolidation dated 21.1.2014 passed in chak allotment proceedings. 3. From the stage of Assistant Consolidation Officer, the petitioner was proposed two chaks, first chak was proposed on plot no. 291 and 293 etc, out of which plot no. 291 was the original holding of the petitioner and second chak was proposed on plot no. 1073 etc in the vitinity of his original holding on plot no. 1069 and 1086. The petitioner filed an objection against the proposed chaks and claimed for allotment of single chak. The Consolidation Officer found that the petitioner is a small tenure holder, as such, allotment of single chak to the petitioner will be in consonance of the principle of consolidation. However, in the amendment chart attached to the order of Consolidation Officer dated 20.3.2013, the second chak of the petitioner has been disturbed and in its place, the petitioner was allotted chak on plot no. 635 and 683 etc, out of which plot no. 635 was the original holding of the petitioner. The petitioner filed an appeal from the aforesaid order before the appellate court in which the petitioner has raised grievance for allotment of single chak on plot no. 1088 or in alternative, his first chak be abolished and its valuation be allotted on plot no. 1088. It has been alleged by the petitioner that he is having boring as well as planted trees on plot no. 1088. The appeal was heard by Settlement Officer, Consolidation who by order dated 7.10.2013 held that the petitioner is allotted a single chak on plot no. 1088 then it will disturbed the chak of the various other chak holders. It was also observed that plot no. 1088 was not the original holding of the petitioner. On this finding the appeal of the petitioner was dismissed. The petitioner filed a revision from the aforesaid order which has been dismissed by Deputy Director of Consolidation by the impugned order dated 21.1.2014. The Deputy Director of Consolidation found that the claim of the petitioner that his boring and trees are existing on plot no. On this finding the appeal of the petitioner was dismissed. The petitioner filed a revision from the aforesaid order which has been dismissed by Deputy Director of Consolidation by the impugned order dated 21.1.2014. The Deputy Director of Consolidation found that the claim of the petitioner that his boring and trees are existing on plot no. 1088 is not substantiated from the entry in CH Form 2 A and he refused to exercise the revisional jurisdiction. Hence this writ petition has been filed. 4. The counsel for the petitioner submits that the Consolidation Officer although recorded a finding that a single chak be allotted to the petitioner but in the amendment chart attached to the order of Consolidation Officer, only the second chak of the petitioner was abolished and its valuation has been allotted on plot no. 635 etc. The Settlement Officer, Consolidation has illegally remarked that plot no. 1088 was not the original holding of the petitioner and the Deputy Director of Consolidation has not accepted the case of the petitioner that his boring as well as trees were existed on plot no. 1088, only on the ground that in CH Form 2 A, the boring and trees were not noted. He submits that all the three consolidation authorities have dealt with the case of the petitioner in casual manner and without application of mind. In such circumstances, the orders of consolidation authorities are liable to be set aside. 5. I have considered the arguments of the counsel for the parties and examined the record. A perusal of CH Form 23 of the petitioner shows that total area of plot no. 1088 was 0.0405 hectare in which the petitioner had 1/12 share. Thus the petitioner did not have entire share in this plot. Since this plot has been allotted to other small chak holders as noticed by the Settlement Officer, Consolidation, as such, in case the demand of the petitioner is accepted then the other chak holders will be disturbed from their chaks. In such circumstances, although, the observation in the order of Settlement Officer, Consolidation that plot no. 1088 was not the original holding of the petitioner, is incorrect but the reason given for not allotting this single chak to the petitioner on this plot, does not suffer from any illegality. In such circumstances, although, the observation in the order of Settlement Officer, Consolidation that plot no. 1088 was not the original holding of the petitioner, is incorrect but the reason given for not allotting this single chak to the petitioner on this plot, does not suffer from any illegality. The Deputy Director of Consolidation has found that in CH Form 2 A, the boring and trees were not noted, as such, he refused to take notice of any subsequent development of this plot. The reasons assigned by the Deputy Director of Consolidation is not illegal reason, as such, after notification of the village the change in the use of the holdings can only be made with the previous permission of the Settlement Officer, Consolidation. 6. The petitioner has been allotted two chaks, one of the area of 0.358 hectare on his original holding on plot no. 291 and the other of the area of 0.520 hectare on his original holding of plot no. 635. Thus both the chak of the petitioner are on his original holding and no material prejudice has been caused to the petitioner. 7. The writ petition has no merit, it is dismissed. _____________