Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 3292 (ALL)

Nanhe v. Deputy Director of Consolidation Amroha

2015-10-16

ANJANI KUMAR MISHRA

body2015
JUDGMENT Anjani Kumar Mishra, J. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Brajesh Shukla who has filed caveat on behalf of the respondent nos. 3, 4 and 5. 2. The writ petition arises out of proceedings for allotment of chak and has been filed seeking quashing of the order dated 30.09.2015 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Amroha and the order dated 27.07.2015 passed by the Settlement Officer Consolidation. 3. Upon hearing learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of the record, it appears that the Assistant Consolidation Officer stage the petitioner has been proposed a single chak. On his objection he was alloted two chaks. This order of the Consolidation Officer was reversed on an appeal filed by the respondents and the petitioner was again proposed a single chak on his largest original holding, Plot no. 478. This order has been affirmed by the revisional court on the ground that the parties are all small tenure holders. 4. It has further been held that there is no justification for allotting two chaks to the petitioner and he has rightly been proposed a single chak on his largest original holding. 5. The only other submission worth consideration is that the petitioners' source of irrigation exists in Plot no. 435. 6. In reply to the submission, learned counsel for the respondents submits that in CH Form-2(A) the private source of irrigation on Plot no. 435 is shown to be joint and is not the exclusive boring of the petitioner. Even otherwise, no pleading as regards his private source of irrigation was raised in the memo of revision or during arguments. I therefore, find that it is not established conclusively that the boring in question on Plot no. 435 belongs exclusively to the petitioner. Even the submission of learned counsel for the caveator that no such plea was raised before the revisional court or in the memo of revision itself, is correct. 7. In such view of the matter, I do not find any fit ground to interfere with the order impugned. 8. In my considered opinion, substantial justice has been done between the parties by the order impugned. 9. The writ petition is therefore, devoid of merits and is accordingly dismissed. 10. After this order has been dictated, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on a judgment of this court reported in AWC 2005-1-44301(Nathunee Vs DDC). 8. In my considered opinion, substantial justice has been done between the parties by the order impugned. 9. The writ petition is therefore, devoid of merits and is accordingly dismissed. 10. After this order has been dictated, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on a judgment of this court reported in AWC 2005-1-44301(Nathunee Vs DDC). 11. In this judgment it has been held that it is mandatory for the Deputy Director of Consolidation to make a spot inspection. 12. It is settled law that a spot inspection is mandatory for the Consolidation Officer and as also the Settlement Officer Consolidation in view of Section 21(3) of the Act which is quoted below: - "Disposal of objections to the provisional Consolidation Scheme: - The Consolidation Officer shall, before deciding the objections, and the Settlement Officer, Consolidation, may, before deciding an appeal, make local inspection of the plots in dispute after notice to the parties concerned and the Consolidation Committee." 13. No spot inspection is mandatory as far as the Deputy Director of Consolidation is concerned as is clear from a bare reading of the provision quoted above. 14. The Deputy Director of Consolidation is mandatorily required to make a spot inspection only if an application in writing in this regard is made by a party. There is nothing on record to indicate that the petitioner had made any such application for a spot inspection. Therefore, the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is without merit and is repelled. In the case cited before me, a prayer for spot inspection had been made before the Deputy Director of Consolidation and therefore, the judgment cited does not help the petitioner. 15. Accordingly and for the reasons given above, this writ petition is dismissed.