Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 1068 (ALL)

Sudhakar v. Dy. Director of Consolidation, Mau

2015-05-01

RAM SURAT RAM (MAURYA)

body2015
JUDGMENT Ram Surat Ram (Maurya), J. 1. Heard Sri U.P. Singh for the petitioners and Sri R.N. Yadav for the respondents. The writ petition has been filed against the order of Deputy Director of Consolidation dated 9.1.2015 passed in chak allotment proceeding under UP Consolidation of Holdings Act. 2. The dispute between the parties is in respect of allotment of chak on plot No. 286 which was the original holding of respondents 2 to 4. From the stage of Assistant Consolidation Officer, the petitioners were allotted chak on plot No. 286. Respondents - 2 to 4 filed an objection under section 20 of the Act claiming for allotment of chak on plot No. 286. The Consolidation Officer by the order dated 13.12.2013 found that plot No. 286 situated in the middle of the abadi and is surrounded by the original holdings of the petitioners therefore it has been allotted in the chak of the petitioners. In lieu of it respondents - 2 to 4 were allotted chak on plot No. 293 in the eastern side which is also a road side land and as such no prejudice has been caused to them. Accordingly the objection has been dismissed. Respondents-2 to 4 filed an appeal from the aforesaid order. The Settlement Officer Consolidation by the order dated 28.2.2014 again recorded the finding that plot No. 286 is surrounded with the original holding of the petitioners and therefore it was allotted in their chak. So far as the chak of respondents- 2 to 4 was concerned, they were allotted chak on the road side land as such there is no grievance to them. Accordingly the appeal was dismissed. Thereafter respondents - 2 to 4 filed a revision against the aforesaid order. It may be mentioned that there was another chak appeal filed by Shyam Lal which was decided by Settlement Officer Consolidation by separate order dated 6.3.2014. The petitioners filed a revision against the order dated 6.3.2014. Respondents - 2 to 4 filed a revision against the order dated 28.4.2014 and there were other chak revisions also of the village. It may be mentioned that there was another chak appeal filed by Shyam Lal which was decided by Settlement Officer Consolidation by separate order dated 6.3.2014. The petitioners filed a revision against the order dated 6.3.2014. Respondents - 2 to 4 filed a revision against the order dated 28.4.2014 and there were other chak revisions also of the village. All the revisions were consolidated and decided by the Deputy Director of Consolidation who by the order dated 9.1.2015 found that so far as plot No. 286 was concerned, this plot was the original holding of respondents - 2 to 4 and land situated by the side of the road as well as in the side of abadi therefore it was valuable land and ought to have been allotted to respondents - 2 to 4. Respondents - 2 to 4 have been illegally deprived from their original holding. So far as the petitioners are concerned, it has been found that plot No. 636 was the original holding of the petitioners and this plot was left as bachat land accordingly the excess area of the chak of the petitioners has to be adjusted on plot Nos. 636 and 637. Accordingly the revisions were allowed and the chaks of the parties were affected. Hence this writ petition has been filed. 3. The Counsel for the petitioners submits that by the order of Deputy Director of Consolidation, the petitioners have been allotted four chaks which is against the principle of UP Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953. The chaks of the petitioners were multi corner chak and it were not in rectangular shape. He further submits that Consolidation Officer and Settlement Officer Consolidation has categorically found that plot No. 286 situated in middle of original holding of the petitioners. Accordingly, plot No. 286 was allotted in the chak of the petitioners. It has been further found that respondents - 2 to 4 were allotted chak on plot No. 293/2 which is also situated on the road side and having equal valuation of land therefore no prejudice has been caused to respondents - 2 to 4. He further submits that in plot No. 286 the share of respondents - 2 to 4 was only 0.029 hectare however in lieu of it they were allotted chak by the Deputy Director of Consolidation of the area of 0.136 hectare. He further submits that in plot No. 286 the share of respondents - 2 to 4 was only 0.029 hectare however in lieu of it they were allotted chak by the Deputy Director of Consolidation of the area of 0.136 hectare. Thus undue benefit has been given to respondents - 2 to 4. The petitioners have specifically raised a ground that they have been allotted chak of the valuation of 100 paisa land while his maximum original holding was valued as the rate of 50 to 80 paisa therefore the area has been substantially reduced but the Deputy Director of Consolidation has not considered the grievance of the petitioners in this respect. The order of Deputy Director of Consolidation is illegal and liable to be set aside. 4. I have considered the arguments of the Counsel for the parties and examined the records. 5. So far as the number of chaks is concerned, section 19(e) (2nd proviso) provides that merely on the ground that number of chak has exceeded three, the Consolidation cannot be held to be invalid. As such there is no illegality in allotment of four chaks to the petitioners and on this ground the order of Deputy Director of Consolidation cannot be set aside. 6. So far as the allotment of high valuation of land to the petitioners is concerned, total original holding of the petitioners was 5.538 hectare and now after the order of Deputy Director of Consolidation total area of their chak has become 5.315 hectare. Under section19(1)(b) proviso provides that the variation of the allotted area should not exceed 25 percent. In case general deduction for public contribution is taken into account then total allotted holding comes equal to the original holding and there is no variation in the area. Thus allotment of high valuation of land in the chak of the petitioners has not caused any prejudice to the petitioners, as generally high valuation land is good fertile land. 7. So far as the arguments that chaks of the petitioners are multi corner is concerned, shape of rectangulation for chaks has to be provided where the sector is in rectangulation form. The place where there is no rectangulation form on that place the rectangular chak cannot be provided. At this place the road is curving out due to which chaks are made multi-corner. The place where there is no rectangulation form on that place the rectangular chak cannot be provided. At this place the road is curving out due to which chaks are made multi-corner. Otherwise also when plot No. 286 was in the chak of the petitioners, their chak was multi corner and they were satisfied. Now that corner has been abolished and the original holding of the petitioners has been included in their chak therefore the only ground that chak of the petitioners has become muti corner and it cannot be set aside. So far as the allotment of plot No. 636 in the chak of the petitioners is concerned, it is original holding of the petitioners. Since their area was exceeding as such excess area was not adjusted on the original holding of the petitioners and it was lying as bachat land. There is no alternative for the Deputy Director of Consolidation. 8. So far as plot No. 286 is concerned, the Consolidation Officer and Settlement Officer Consolidation also found that plot is situated in the side of village and by the side of road, therefore it was a more valuable land than plot No. 293/2 which was allotted in the chaks of respondent-2 to 4. So far as share of respondents-2 to 4 are concerned they are allotted chak on their original holding. Only their co-sharers can challenge the allotment of excess share and an outsider cannot challenge the allotment. In such circumstances, the substantial justice has been done and no interference is required by this Court. The writ petition has no merit, it is dismissed. ……………….