Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 426 (ALL)

Hari Ram v. Dy. Director of Consolidation

2015-03-09

RAM SURAT RAM (MAURYA)

body2015
JUDGMENT Ram Surat Ram (Maurya), J. 1. Heard Sri Jagdish Prasad Tripathi, for the petitioner. The writ petition has been filed against the order of Deputy Director of Consolidation dated 18.12.2014, passed in chak allotment proceeding under U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 -(hereinafter referred to as the Act). 2. Dispute between the parties is for allotment of chak in northern side on plot 74 of village Phulpur, tappa Kalwari, tahsil and district Basti. Plots 74 (area 0.550 hectare), 97 (area 0.120 hectare) and 99 (area 0.300 hectare) were original holdings of the petitioner and Chunni Lal (respondent-3), in which both of them were having 1/3 share each. Assistant Consolidation Officer proposed a single chak to the petitioner of 0.308 hectare in the northern side on plots 74 (area 0.263 hectare), 75 (area 0.044 hectare) and 69 (area 0.001 hectare), while respondent-3 was proposed two chaks, first chak on plot 74 in southern side and second chak on plot 209. Respondent-3 filed an objection (registered as Case No. 93) under section 20 of the Act, claiming for allotment of chak in northern side on plot 74, taking valuation of plot 209 also. Consolidation Officer, after hearing the parties, by order dated 14.2.2014, partly allowed the objection of respondent-3 and shifted the chak of respondent-3 in northern side. The petitioner filed a time barred appeal from the aforesaid order on 12.8.2014, in which State of U.P. alone was impleaded as the respondent. It is alleged that the appeal was allowed by order dated 21.10.2014, without issuing any notice to respondent-3 and without condoning the delay in filing the appeal and the order of Consolidation Officer' dated 14.2.2014 was set aside and chaks of the parties of the stage of Assistant Consolidation Officer was maintained. 3. Respondent-3 filed a revision (registered as Revision No. 678) against the aforesaid order. The revision was heard by Deputy Director of Consolidation, who by order dated 18.12.2014, held that Settlement Officer Consolidation, without issuing any notice to respondent-3, allowed the appeal after hearing the petitioner only and disturbed the chak of respondent-3. At the time of spot inspection, the villagers, who were present on spot also stated that in family partition, respondent-3 was given his share in northern portion on plot 74. In such circumstances allotment of chak to the petitioner in northern portion of plot 74 was not proper. At the time of spot inspection, the villagers, who were present on spot also stated that in family partition, respondent-3 was given his share in northern portion on plot 74. In such circumstances allotment of chak to the petitioner in northern portion of plot 74 was not proper. On these findings the revision was allowed and order of Settlement Officer Consolidation was set aside and order of Consolidation Officer was maintained. Hence this writ petition has been filed. 4. The Counsel for the petitioner submits that plot 74 was the original holding of the petitioner and respondent-3. In family partition, the petitioner was given his share in northern portion on plot 74, which was verified by Assistant Consolidation Officer, as such the petitioner was proposed his chak on northern portion of plot 74. Consolidation Officer and Deputy Director of Consolidation without spot inspection disturbed the chak of the petitioner and allotted him southern portion, by a non-speaking order. Orders of Consolidation Officer and Deputy Director of Consolidation are illegal and liable to be set aside. 5. I have considered the arguments of the Counsel for the petitioner and examined the record. Deputy Director of Consolidation, in the impugned order has noticed that he had made spot inspection and at the time of spot inspection, the villagers, who were present on spot had also stated that in family partition, respondent-3 was given his share in northern portion on plot 74. Statement of fact, recorded in the impugned order has not been specifically challenged. In any case, statement of fact, recorded in the order cannot be challenged before the higher Court. Vague allegations made in the writ petition has not been proved by filing order sheet of the revision. In such circumstances, there is no reason to believe that respondent-1 has not made spot inspection and false fact has been noticed in this respect by him in the order. So far as the arguments that provisions of Rule 24-D has not been complied with is concerned. Rule 24-D is relevant for disposal of objection under section 9-B and not for disposal of objection under section20 of the Act. Section 21(3) made it obligatory of Consolidation Officer and Settlement Officer Consolidation for spot inspection and not for Deputy Director of Consolidation. But in this case, Deputy Director of Consolidation also made spot inspection. 6. Rule 24-D is relevant for disposal of objection under section 9-B and not for disposal of objection under section20 of the Act. Section 21(3) made it obligatory of Consolidation Officer and Settlement Officer Consolidation for spot inspection and not for Deputy Director of Consolidation. But in this case, Deputy Director of Consolidation also made spot inspection. 6. The petitioner and respondent-3 were co-sharers in plots 74 (area 0.550 hectare), 97 (area 0.120 hectare) and 99 (area 0.300 hectare) having 1/3 share each. Assistant Consolidation Officer proposed a single chak to the petitioner of 0.308 hectare in the northern side on plots 74, although an area of 0.183 hectare of this plot was of his share. While respondent-3 was proposed two chaks, first chak on plot 74 in southern side and second chak on plot 209. Thus from the stage of Assistant Consolidation Officer, the petitioner was given double benefits. In any case, chak of the petitioner has been allotted on his original holdings. There is no illegality in it. 7. Respondent-3 claimed that in family partition, he was given his share in northern side of plot 74. Respondent-1, after spot inspection accepted version of respondent-3. Deputy Director of Consolidation is last Court of fact. Finding of fact recorded by Deputy Director of Consolidation cannot be interfered by this Court. So far as order of Settlement Officer Consolidation is concerned, it is apparent that this order was passed without condoning the delay in filing the appeal and without issuing any notice to respondent-3. Thus it was an ex-parte order obtained behind the back of respondent-3. No reliance can be placed on it. In view of aforesaid discussions, order of respondent-1 does not suffer from any illegality. The writ petition has no merit and is dismissed.