Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 1210 (ALL)

Baldev v. D. M. / D. D. C. , Maharajganj

2015-05-13

RAM SURAT RAM (MAURYA)

body2015
JUDGMENT Ram Surat Ram (Maurya), J. Heard Sri Ashish Kumar Srivastava for the petitioners and Sri Sanjay Shukla for the contesting respondents. 2. The writ petition has been filed against the orders of Consolidation Officer dated 27.8.2007, Settlement Officer, Consolidation dated 30.12.2011 and Deputy Director of Consolidation dated 27.3.2015 passed in chak allotment proceeding under U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953(hereinafter referred to as "the Act"). 3. Plot no.63, area 0.49 hectare and 66/1, area 0.39 hectare was the original holding of the petitioners in which the petitioners were having ½ share. The petitioners were allotted their chak taking an area of plot nos. 66, 67, 61, 55 of 0.341 hectare. The petitioners filed an objection before the Consolidation Officer alleging that chak as allotted to them at this place had become in 'U' shape. Plot no.66 was their original holding but Shyam Lal, respondent-4, has been allotted an uran chak at this place. The objection of the petitioners was considered by the Consolidation Officer, who by order dated 27.8.2007 found that the petitioners were allotted chak taking th eland from back portion of their house and Shyam Lal was allotted chak in the back portion of his house. He, however, slightly modified the chak of the parties at this place and allotted chak to Shyam Lal on plot nos. 62 and 67. Thereafter the petitioners filed an appeal against the aforesaid order before the Settlement Officer, Consolidation . The Assistant Settlement Officer, Consolidation by order dated 31.12.2007 allowed the appeal of the petitioners and allotted plot no.61 to Shyam Lal. Shyam Lal challenged the aforesaid order in revision which was allowed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation by order dated 17.6.2009. The order dated 17.6.2009 was challenged by the petitioner in Writ B No.40124 of 2009, which was allowed by this Court by order dated 5.8.2009 and the matter was remanded to the Settlement Officer, Consolidation for deciding the appeal afresh. After remand the Settlement Officer, Consolidation again after spot inspection by order dated 30.12.2011 dismissed the appeal of petitioners and the petitioners filed a revision against the aforesaid order which has been dismissed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation by order dated 27.3.2015. Thus, order of the Consolidation Officer dated 27.8.2007 has been maintained. 4. I have considered the arguments of the counsel for the parties. 5. Thus, order of the Consolidation Officer dated 27.8.2007 has been maintained. 4. I have considered the arguments of the counsel for the parties. 5. The grievance of the petitioners is that their chak had become in 'U' shape. By the order of the Consolidation Officer Shyam Lal, respondent-4, has been allotted an area of 0.049 hectare of plot no.62 and area of 0.03 hectare of plot no.67 in his chak. Neither plot no.62 nor plot no.67 was the original holding of the petitioners rather plot nos. 63 and 66 were the original holding of the petitioners . A small portion i.e.0.052 hectare has been allotted on the back of the house of Shyam Lal to him, which is useful for the purpose of his house. 6. So far as the contention of the counsel for the petitioners that chak of the petitioners has become in 'U' shape, is concerned, Section 19(1) (g) of the Act provides that every tenure-holder is, as far as possible, allotted chaks in conformity with the process of rectangulation in rectangulation units. In carving out chak in rectangular shape the unit must also be in the rectangular shape. At this place the unit is not in rectangular shape. In the circumstances, either the chak of Shyam Lal or the chak of the petitioners could not be allotted in rectangular shape and the shape has to be changed either of Shyam Lal's chak or that of the petitioners. The total area of the petitioners is 0.341 hectare while the total area of the chak of Shyam Lal is 0.052 hectare at this place. In case chak of Shyma Lal is allotted in 'L shape then it will cause great hardship to him while the chak of the petitioners having larger area, allotting the chak in 'U' shape their hardship will not cause greater hardship except that two corners would be enhanced in their chak. Therefore, rectangulation of chaks to the parties is not possible at this place. The provision of Section 19 of the Act has to be applied and 'as far as possible' chaks should be allotted in conformity of the rectangulation. In this case, it is not possible to allot the chaks in rectangular shape at this place. 7. Therefore, rectangulation of chaks to the parties is not possible at this place. The provision of Section 19 of the Act has to be applied and 'as far as possible' chaks should be allotted in conformity of the rectangulation. In this case, it is not possible to allot the chaks in rectangular shape at this place. 7. Relying upon paragraph-7 of the objection (annexure-3) it has been argued that chak road by the side of plot no.60 was not upto the chak of the petitioners as such the petitioners have no access up to their chak. A perusal of the map as given in amendment chart of the order dated 31.12.2007 shows that chak road is upto chak of the petitioners. In paragraph-7 of the objection, the petitioners were demanding shifting chak of Shyam Lal from back portion of his house towards north by the side of chak road. 8. The impugned orders do not suffer from any illegality. No interference is required by this Court. The writ petition has no merit and it is dismissed.