Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 3395 (ALL)

Girja Pd. Rai v. D. D. C.

2015-10-29

ANJANI KUMAR MISHRA

body2015
JUDGMENT Anjani Kumar Mishra,J. Heard Sri Ashok Kumar Singh, learned counsel on behalf of the petitioner. None has appeared for the contesting respondents. 2. This petition arises out of proceedings for allotment of chaks and challenges the order dated 9.3.1983 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation Officer in Revision No. 24 and the order dated 21.9.1982 passed by the Assistant Settlement Officer Consolidation. The Deputy Director Consolidation by the impugned order has decided 24 revisions by a common order. 3. It appears that at the A.C.O. stage, the petitioner was proposed a single chak of 9 Bigha, 5 Biswa and 7 Dhur on plot no. 1103 and 1093. Certain modifications were made in the chaks by the order of the Consolidation Officer. The petitioner appears to have been fully satisfied by such allotment. The contesting opposite party, chak holder no. 41, filed an appeal before the Settlement Officer Consolidation praying for allotment of chak on plot no. 938 and 911. The Settlement Officer Consolidation by his order dated 21.9.1982 allowed the appeal. The allotment made in favour of the petitioners on plot no. 1105 and 1106 was abolished as plot no. 1105 and 1106 were not the original holding of the petitioners. 4. Aggrieved by this order the petitioners filed a revision. The Deputy Director Consolidation by his order dated 9.3.1983 allowed the revision of the petitioners in part. He recorded a finding that the petitioners had been proposed chaks on plot nos. 275 etc. consisting entirely of bad quality land. Accordingly, he modified the chaks so as to include better quality plots also. However, the plot nos. 275 etc. were not totally excluded from the chak of the petitioner on the reasoning that these were his original plots and, therefore, an area commensurate to his original holding on these plots was proposed in his chak. Aggrieved by the orders aforesaid this writ petition has been filed. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioners were not allotted any original holding of Thakur Rai, chak holder no. 41 and, therefore, the petitioners chak could not have been altered at his instance. The second ground is that the petitioners co-tenure holder, Kailash Rai opposite party no. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioners were not allotted any original holding of Thakur Rai, chak holder no. 41 and, therefore, the petitioners chak could not have been altered at his instance. The second ground is that the petitioners co-tenure holder, Kailash Rai opposite party no. 3 in the writ petition, was neither a party in the appeal or the revision and therefore, the orders impugned are ex parte against him and therefore, liable to be set aside. The third submission is that the petitioner's chak has been disturbed with the benefit of nobody and therefore, deserves to be set aside. Lastly, it has been submitted that the correction table appended to the order of the Deputy Director of Consolidation is not in consonance with the body of the judgment. The petitioner had been allotted substantial area from bachat land, which has been excluded from his chak and has been left as bachat. In case, this land was to be left as bachat it could as well have been retained in his chak. 6. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and have perused the record. As already recorded in the earlier part of this judgment, valid reasons has been assigned by the Settlement Officer Consolidation and as also the Deputy Director Consolidation for altering the chak of the petitioner. In fact, the Revisional order has granted substantial relief to the petitioner. In so far as the revision Court refused to grant relief, even that was on account of cogent reasons, I do not find any illegality in the reasoning given in the impugned order. 7. The contention that since the petitioners have never been allotted any original holding of Thakur Rai etc. chak holder no. 41 and, therefore, their chak could not have been altered at his instance, is without substance. The proceedings for allotment of chaks are with the object of consolidating the holdings of a tenure holder and also for the purposes of rectangulation. In case, if every tenure holder is allotted his original holding, the consolidation operations would be an impossibility. In such view of the matter, the first submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is repelled. 8. In so far as the second submission that the petitioners chak has been altered from the benefit of nobody is again not worthy of consideration. In such view of the matter, the first submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is repelled. 8. In so far as the second submission that the petitioners chak has been altered from the benefit of nobody is again not worthy of consideration. A tenure holder, challenging an order for allotment of chaks, has to establish the injury suffered by him and his claims are to be considered in this light. It is not for the petitioner to contend as to whether anybody has been or not benefited by the impugned order. This aspect is wholly irrelevant and only aspect that requires to be considered is the injury suffered by the petitioner on account of order impugned. No such injury has been pointed out and, therefore, even the second submission is of no consequence. 9. The next contention that the orders impugned are ex parte against Kailash Rai opposite party no. 3, the co-tenure holder of the petitioner, is again without merit. In case, the orders were ex parte and Kailash Rai was aggrieved by such ex parte order, he should have challenged the same. Lack of challenge by Kailash Rai necessarily shows that he was not aggrieved by the orders impugned. 10. As regards, the submission that the correction table appended to the order of the Deputy Director Consolidation is not consonance with the body of the judgment, the same is also without merit. No specifics have been argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner. However, the averments in this regard are primarily that the correction table does not show from where the plots allotted to the petitioners were excluded. The petitioners have no reason to be aggrieved even if the source of the land allotted to them is not disclosed. The order impugned, therefore, calls for no interference on this ground as well. 11. The orders impugned as already noticed, have been passed for cogent reasons. No attempt has been made to rebut the reasons given for passing the impugned orders. The submissions that have been made have already been repelled and, therefore, the writ petition lacks merits, is liable to be dismissed. Since, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed, I do not see any justification for issuing notices on the substitution application filed to bring on record the heirs of the deceased respondents. 12. The submissions that have been made have already been repelled and, therefore, the writ petition lacks merits, is liable to be dismissed. Since, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed, I do not see any justification for issuing notices on the substitution application filed to bring on record the heirs of the deceased respondents. 12. A petition can always be dismissed without hearing the respondents. However, since the substitution application has been filed, the delay in filing the substitution application is condoned even without hearing the proposed heirs and the substitution application are also allowed. 13. Accordingly, I find no merit in the writ petition. The writ petition is therefore dismissed without any order as to costs. 14. The office may incorporate the substitution forthwith, before a certified copy of this order is issued to any of the parties in the writ petition.