Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 166 (ALL)

Bhopal Singh v. D. D. C.

2015-01-23

ANJANI KUMAR MISHRA

body2015
JUDGMENT Anjani Kumar Mishra, J. 1. Heard S.V. Goswami, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Shri Chetan Chatterji for the respondents. The petition arises out of proceedings for allotment of chaks and is directed against the order dated 6.7.2005 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation and the order dated 30.5.2002 passed by the Settlement Officer, Consolidation, Muzaffar Nagar. 2. The petitioner is holder of chak No. 2283, the respondent No. 3 is holder of chak No. 727 while respondent No. 4 is holder of chak No. 2895. 3. The respondent Nos. 2 and 3 filed separate objections under section 21-(1) of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act. The Consolidation Officer on 16.9.2000 rejected the objection filed by the respondent No. 3. The objection filed by the respondent No. 4 was dismissed on 5.6.2000. The consequential appeal was dismissed on 25.4.2001. Subsequently the order was recalled and the Settlement Officer, Consolidation again decided the appeal on 30.5.2002. By this order the appeal was allowed affecting the chak of the petitioner, allotting him two chaks in lieu of a single chak proposed at the ACO stage having an area of 6-5-14 on plot No. 554 etc. 4. Aggrieved by the appellate order, the petitioner preferred a revision. This revision was allowed on 30.11.2002 and the petitioner's chak as existing at the ACO stage was restored. Thereafter a recall application for recall of the order dated 30.11.2002 was filed. This recall application was allowed on 29.12.2004, the order dated 30.11.2002 was set aside and the revision was restored to its original number. 5. Against the order, allowing the restoration application the petitioner preferred a writ petition No. 30915 of 2005 which was dismissed. Ultimately on 6.7.2005 the revision filed by the petitioner, has been dismissed. Therefore, this writ petition has been filed, challenging the appellate and revisional orders. 6. It has been submitted by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the order dated 30.11.2002 had been recalled at the instance of persons other than the respondent Nos. 3 and 4. Separate restoration applications were filed by Ram Chandra, Udal Singh and Shri Sifo, respectively for recall of the order dated 30.11.2002. All the three restoration applications were allowed by the order dated 29.12.2004. 3 and 4. Separate restoration applications were filed by Ram Chandra, Udal Singh and Shri Sifo, respectively for recall of the order dated 30.11.2002. All the three restoration applications were allowed by the order dated 29.12.2004. He has, therefore, contended that the restoration application had not been filed by the contesting respondents 3 and 4 and, therefore, the impugned order, as regards the contesting respondents amounts to review, which power the Consolidation Courts do not possess. The second contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner has been allotted two chaks both of which are udan chaks. The last submission is that as a consequence of the modifications made by the appellate order, the petitioner has been deprived of the benefit of his private source of irrigation. Chaks have been proposed at a place where they cannot be irrigated from the petitioner's private source of irrigation. 7. Learned Counsel for the respondent on the other hand has supported the impugned order, he has stated that the orders impugned are perfectly justified and call for no interference. The writ petition is devoid of merits and deserves to be dismissed. 8. I have considered the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the parties and have perused the record. 9. As regards the submission of learned Counsel for the petitioner that the impugned order amounts to review, it would be relevant to record that the order dated 30.11.2002 was set aside on the ground that persons effected thereby were not parties to the revision. This order has been affirmed by dismissal of writ petition No. 30915 of 2005. It is, therefore, clear that the order dated 30.11.2002 is not in existence and, therefore, there is no question of its being reviewed by the impugned order. The question as to whose instance the order of 30.11.2002 was set aside, is of no relevance. Once this order was set aside the revision was necessarily required to be decided on its merit. This is precisely what has been done by the impugned order and, therefore, the contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the impugned order amounts to review of the order dated 30.11.2002 has no substance and is repelled. 10. Once this order was set aside the revision was necessarily required to be decided on its merit. This is precisely what has been done by the impugned order and, therefore, the contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the impugned order amounts to review of the order dated 30.11.2002 has no substance and is repelled. 10. As regards the two other submissions made by the learned Counsel for the petitioner are concerned, the Deputy Director of Consolidation has recorded that the petitioner is a big tenure-holder while the contesting respondents are small tenure-holders. He has further recorded that the petitioner possessed original holdings at four places and by the impugned appellate order he has been allotted two chaks which is in consonance with the scheme of the Act. It has also been recorded that the contesting respondents have been allotted chaks on the original plots of their father. 11. It appears from the record that the father of the contesting respondents is dead and, therefore, the contention of the petitioner that the contesting respondents have been allotted chaks on plots which were not their original holding is not correct inasmuch as the contesting respondents had succeeded their father and, therefore, will be deemed to be the original holders of the plots recorded in the name of their father. 12. From the above facts noted in the impugned order, in my considered opinion, substantial justice has been done between the parties. I am not convinced that the petitioner has suffered any injury on account of his being allotted two chaks, specially in view of the categorical finding recorded by the Deputy Director of Consolidation that the petitioner is a larger tenure holder and as a result of consolidation operations his original holdings existing at four different places have been consolidated into two chaks. Besides, this statement of fact has not been challenged in the writ petition. 13. It also emerges from a perusal of the order passed by this Court in writ petition No. 30915 of 2005, copy whereof has been filed as Annexure No. 3 to the supplementary-affidavit dated 25.8.2011 filed on behalf of the petitioner that they were as many as 12 persons, arrayed as respondents in the said writ petition. These 12 persons were those at whose instance, the order dated 30.11.2002 had been recalled. These 12 persons were those at whose instance, the order dated 30.11.2002 had been recalled. Such persons have not been impleaded as parties in the writ petition and, therefore, the writ petition also appears to have been filed without impleading necessary persons. I, therefore, find no justification to interfere with the impugned orders. The writ petition, therefore, is accordingly dismissed.