Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 1367 (ALL)

Lal Chand v. D. D. C. Ghazipur

2016-04-12

ANJANI KUMAR MISHRA

body2016
JUDGMENT Anjani Kumar Mishra, J. Heard Sri Krishna Bahadur, learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the respondents. 2. This writ petition arises out of proceedings for allotment of chaks and seeks quashing of the orders dated 22.09.2003 and 19.03.2005 passed by the Assistant Settlement Officer Consolidation, Ghazipur and the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Ghazipur, respectively. 3. The petitioner No.1 is the holder of Chak No.396 and the petitioner No.2 is the holder of Chak No.153 carved out in the name of her deceased husband, Dharm Narain. 4. At the appellate stage, the petitioner no.1 and the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioner no.2 filed an appeal challenging the order passed by the Consolidation Officer. Their contention was that plot Nos.236 and 237 were their original holdings consisting of very high quality land, situated near that Abadi. Although, they had been proposed a chak over these plots yet the allotment was inappropriate considering that the respondent in the appeal, namely Kinnoo, respondent no.4, had been allotted an Uran Chak over these plots. 5. With a view to allot the petitioners chak abuting the road, the Settlement Officer Consolidation allowed the appeal, disturbing the respondent no.4. 6. Aggrieved by this order, the respondent no.4 preferred a revision which has been allowed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation on the finding that the revisionist, opposite party no.4 in the writ petition, had been allotted a very narrow strip of land 1 1/2 Lattha wide and about 150 Lattha long, which was unfit for cultivation. This chak had been allotted to the revisionists with a view to allot a chak to the petitioners abutting the road and near their Abadi. In this regard, a categorical finding has been returned by the Deputy Director of Consolidation that the petitioners are not possessed of any house in the village and that they are residents of another village. A specific reference to the entries contained in CH Form-2A of the petitioners has also been made. For the foregoing reasons, the revision of the respondent no.4 was allowed and the appellate order, set aside. 7. It further appears that the petitioners filed a revision, being revision No.535, which was dismissed, again on the finding that the petitioners have no house in plot Nos.236 and 237 or in the vicinity and they are residents of another village. For the foregoing reasons, the revision of the respondent no.4 was allowed and the appellate order, set aside. 7. It further appears that the petitioners filed a revision, being revision No.535, which was dismissed, again on the finding that the petitioners have no house in plot Nos.236 and 237 or in the vicinity and they are residents of another village. An additional observation has been made that an appeal filed by the petitioners was still pending. This was an additional ground for dismissing the revision. 8. The primary contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that no appeal is pending and therefore the reasoning for dismissing the revision is un-sustainable. The writ petition was entertained on this ground also. 9. However, in my considered opinion, this reasoning, even if it is incorrect, does not improve the case of the petitioners. The revision has been dismissed also on the ground that they have no house either on plot Nos.236 and 237, demanded by them or in the vicinity and that they are residents of a different village. 10. The Deputy Director of Consolidation also observed that the petitioners have been allotted chaks on these original plots and the chaks allotted to him are rectangular in shape. An additional observation of the Deputy Director of Consolidation, even if it is held to be an incorrect observation, the same, in my considered opinion, does not improve the case of the petitioners. The other reasons are enough to justify the order impugned. 11. The Deputy Director of Consolidation has passed the order impugned allowing the revision of the respondent no.4 and dismissing the revision of the petitioners for other, very cogent reasons, which cannot be faulted with on the ground that one of several reasons given, is incorrect. 12. In such view of the matter, the petitioners, in my considered opinion, have not been able to make out a case for interference. The writ petition is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 13. The connected writ petition No.68755 of 2015 has been filed by Kinnoo, respondent no.4 in the writ petition no.47609 of 2005, above. 14. 12. In such view of the matter, the petitioners, in my considered opinion, have not been able to make out a case for interference. The writ petition is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 13. The connected writ petition No.68755 of 2015 has been filed by Kinnoo, respondent no.4 in the writ petition no.47609 of 2005, above. 14. This writ petition is directed against the orders dated 27.06.2015 passed by the Additional District Magistrate / Deputy Director of Consolidation, Ghazipur in Reference Case No.269, under Section 48(3) of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act as also the order dated 06.09.2007 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Ghazipur. 15. By the order dated 06.09.2007, a Reference prepared for implementing the order dated 08.11.2015, whereby plot Nos.236 and 237 had been excluded from consolidation operations has been accepted exparte. 16. However, the order was set aside in revision vide order dated 19.03.2005, which was impugned in writ petition No.47609 of 2005 and which stands affirmed by dismissal of the said writ petition, above. 17. Aggrieved by the acceptance of the reference, exparte, the petitioner preferred a restoration application. The proceedings on the restoration application were stayed by the order dated 27.06.2015 on account of the pendency of the aforementioned writ petition No.47609 of 2005 and the interim order operating therein. However, since the aforementioned writ petition has been dismissed as above, the very basis of the order impugned in the instant writ petition No.68755 of 2015 ceases to exists. The writ petition is therefore disposed of with a direction to the respondent no.1 to consider and decide the restoration application filed by the petitioners expeditiously. 18. It is further observed that the order implementation whereof was approved by the Deputy Director of Consolidation exparte has been set aside by an order passed on 19.03.2005 and the writ petition of the respondents challenging this order has been dismissed. For all practical purposes therefore, the order of the Consolidation Officer dated 08.11.2004 has been set aside and therefore, the same must not be implemented on the spot and, if implemented, the same is liable to be reversed. 19. Accordingly, the writ petition No.47609 of 2005 is dismissed. For all practical purposes therefore, the order of the Consolidation Officer dated 08.11.2004 has been set aside and therefore, the same must not be implemented on the spot and, if implemented, the same is liable to be reversed. 19. Accordingly, the writ petition No.47609 of 2005 is dismissed. The writ petition No.68755 of 2015 is disposed of with a direction to the respondent no.1 to dispose of the restoration application of the petitioner within a period of three months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order before him, in the light of the directions / observations made herein-above.