Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 110 (ALL)

Sunder Lal v. D. D. C. Unnao.

2016-01-08

RAM SURAT RAM (MAURYA)

body2016
JUDGMENT Ram Surat Ram (Maurya),J. 1. Heard Sri Mohd. Arif Khan, Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri Mohd. Aslam Khan, for the petitioner and Sri P.V. Chaudhary, for the contesting respondent-2. 2. The writ petition has been filed against the order of Deputy Director of Consolidation dated 19.12.1995, passed in chak allotment proceeding under U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). 3. Plots 2412, 2423, 2520, 2532, 2536, 2539, 2578, 2581 and 2639 were original holdings of the petitioner. Plot 2519 was grove of Ramesh Chandra (respondent-2) and others and plot 2540 was his original holdings. Ramesh Chandra and others (chak holders 952) was allotted a chak on plot 2540. Ramesh Chandra and others filed an objection (registered as Case No. 1621) under Section 21 of the Act, for allotting a rectangular chak, contiguous to his grove plot 2519, which was chak out. Consolidation Officer, by order dated 26.12.1993, dismissed the objection on the findings that chak of Ramesh Chandra and others was on his original holdings. Ramesh Chandra and others filed an appeal (registered as Appeal No. 765) from aforesaid order. Assistant Settlement Officer Consolidation, by order dated 11.08.1994, dismissed the appeal. Ramesh Chandra and others filed a revision (registered as Revision No. 422) against the aforesaid order. Deputy Director of Consolidation, by order dated 19.12.1995, held chak of Ramesh Chandra and others on plot 2540 was not in rectangular shape. By affecting chak, 1045, 454 and 453, shape of chak of Ramesh Chandra and others can be made in rectangular shape and his chak may also be allotted contiguous to his grove. On these findings, he allowed the revision and allotted chak to Ramesh Chandra and others on plot 2540 taking some area of plots 2537, 2538 and 2539. Among these plots, plot 2539 is original holdings of the petitioner of which an area of 0-1-11 bigha was allotted in chak of Ramesh Chandra and others. The petitioner was allotted chak on plots 2539, 2540 and 2549. Hence this writ petition has been filed. 4. The counsel for the petitioner submitted that plots 2536 (area 1-2-0 bigha) and 2539 (area 2-11-0 bigha) were original holdings of the petitioner and were good fertile land. Chak of the petitioner was on his original holdings at this place. Although plot 2540 was original holding of respondent-2 and plot 2549 belonged to other person. 4. The counsel for the petitioner submitted that plots 2536 (area 1-2-0 bigha) and 2539 (area 2-11-0 bigha) were original holdings of the petitioner and were good fertile land. Chak of the petitioner was on his original holdings at this place. Although plot 2540 was original holding of respondent-2 and plot 2549 belonged to other person. These plots were of low quality of land but valued at high rate. Deputy Director of Consolidation has illegally allotted uran chak to the petitioner on plots 2540 and 2549. Thus the petitioner has suffered double loss in as much as he was allotted uran chak on low quality land and at the same time low quality land allotted in his chak was valued at high rate. Deputy Director of Consolidation has illegally disturbed the chak of the petitioner on his original holdings, without any legal basis. Fact that plots 2540 and 2549 were land of low quality, whose valuation was determined at high rate has been stated in Supplementary Affidavit, which remained un-controverted as such be taken to be true. The chaks of the petitioner has been confirmed in 1995. Since then about 20 years have been passed and the petitioner has been in possession of it as interim order has been granted. Order of respondent-1 is liable to be set aside. 5. I have considered the arguments of the counsel for the parties and examined the record. Deputy Director of Consolidation allowed the revision on two grounds, namely (i) chak of respondent-2 would become in rectangular shape and (ii) his chak would adjoin his grove plot 2519. According to principles as provided under Section 19 of the Act, for carvation of chaks, chaks are required be carved out as far as possible in rectangular shape in compact area. A perusal of chak map shows that chak of respondent-2 of the stage of Assistant Consolidation Officer was in triangular shape. Now by order of respondent-1, it has become in rectangular shape for which an area of 0-1-11 bigha of the original holding of the petitioner has been taken and allotted in his chak. By allotting chak to respondent-2 adjoining to his grove plot 2419, his chak and grove has become in compact area. Order of Deputy Director of Consolidation is fully in consonance with the principles as given for allotment of chak under Section 19 of the Act. By allotting chak to respondent-2 adjoining to his grove plot 2419, his chak and grove has become in compact area. Order of Deputy Director of Consolidation is fully in consonance with the principles as given for allotment of chak under Section 19 of the Act. Chak of respondent-2 of the stage of subordinate authorities was not according to the principles. 6. The argument that plots 2540 and 2549 were land of low quality land whose valuation was determined at high rate, is a factual controversy and has been raised for the first time in Supplementary Affidavit sworn on 13.09.1999. Although, respondent-2 was claiming for allotment of chak taking area of plot 2536 and 2539 in rectangular shape from very beginning and shifting chak of the petitioner on plot 2540 but at no stage, before consolidation authorities, the petitioner has raised this ground that plots 2540 and 2549 were land of low quality land whose valuation was determined at high rate. For the first time, factual controversy cannot be entertained and examined in writ petition. 7. A perusal of chak map shows that plots 2540 and 2549 were adjoining plots of plot 2539. Plots 2539 and 2540 were valued at the rate of 70 paisa while plot 2549, which has been allotted in chak of the petitioner has been valued at the rate of 40 paisa and 20 paisa. There is no reason to believe the allegation that plot 2540 was land of low quality. There is no absolute prohibition in allotting an uran chak during consolidation under the Act. Chak of the petitioner is on his original holding, taking some area of adjacent plot, which was necessitated for making the chaks in rectangular shape. In chak allotment according to principles of Section 19, it is always possible to allot an uran chak. 8. Argument that chak was confirmed and possession was delivered 20 years ago, is concerned, impugned order has also been passed 20 years ago. Changes between chak holders are at the same place. Only for the reasons of pendency of the writ petition for a long time, cannot be a ground to allow the writ petition, although respondent-1 has not committed any illegality in allowing the revision and has done substantial justice between the parties. 9. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the writ petition has no merit and is dismissed.