Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 1864 (ALL)

Kanchhid v. D. D. C.

2016-05-13

ABHINAVA UPADHYA

body2016
JUDGMENT Abhinava Upadhya,J. Supplementary affidavit filed today is taken on record. 2. Heard Shri J.K. Srivastava and Shri J.S. Chandel for the petitioner as well as Shri Ajay Bhanot, learned Senior advocate assisted by Pankaj Kumar Mishra for the respondent no. 3. Learned Standing Counsel represents respondents no. 1 and 2. 3. By means of this writ petitioner has come to this Court raising a grievance that by a sale deed dated 15.6.1987 the petitioner?s father and respondent no. 3 came into possession of Plot No. 108 total area 0.7760 hectare. This was a joint sale deed executed in favour of both, the petitioner's father and respondent no. 3. A suit was filed by the respondent no. 3 for partition under Section 176 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 ( in short 'the Act') which was subsequently withdrawn. It has been urged by the respondent no. 3 that the petitioner had also filed a suit under Section 176 of the Act, which suit was dismissed in default. Subsequently it appears that the respondent no. 3 filed an application under Section 5-C of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 seeking permission to raise certain construction. The said permission was granted by order dated 14.9.2015. The petitioner then filed an objection that there is no partition in the property and, therefore, no such permission can be given. The said objection was rejected by the Settlement Officer of Consolidation by its order dated 25.2.2016. Against the grant of permission to raise construction as well as grant of permission to establish a petrol pump the petitioner filed two revisions. In both the revisions the Deputy Director of Consolidation earlier granted an interim order by order dated 19.3.2016. Upon objection being filed by the respondent no. 3, the said interim order being an ex-parte order was recalled and now the matter has been fixed for final disposal of the aforesaid revisions before the Deputy Director of Consolidation. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that since admittedly there is no partition by metes and bounds by the parties and the sale deed being a common sale deed having half share of each, the permission ought not to have been granted by the Settlement Officer of Consolidation with regard to raising construction unless it was established that the said construction was being raised on the share of the respondent no. 3. 3. The share since has not been decided, such a direction ought not to be given. 5. Shri Ajay Bhanot, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Shri Pankaj Kumar Mishra, learned counsel appearing for respondent no. 3 submits that the conducts by the parties on the plot are on their respective shares and there exists a boundary wall demarcated the plot into half and the respondent no. 3 is in north side of the plot along with road and, therefore, being owner of the plot no injunction could have been granted and the respondent no. 3 was perfectly justified in raising construction. 6. Considering the submissions of learned counsel for the parties, I am of the view that the Deputy Director of Consolidation had already fixed a date for hearing the matter under the Consolidation of Holdings Act. The Deputy Director of Consolidation is competent enough to look into all aspects of matter also with regard to partition of the plot. In case such an objection is raised, the same shall also be decided by the Deputy Director of Consolidation while deciding the aforesaid revisions. 7. Under the given facts and circumstances of the case, it would be appropriate to give a direction to the Deputy Director of Consolidation to decide the Revisions No. 23/2016 and 30/2016 within a period of four months from the date a certified copy of this order is produced before him. Learned counsel appearing for both sides upon instruction of their clients made a statement that they will cooperate in the early disposal of the proceedings before the Deputy Director of Consolidation and will not seek unnecessary adjournment. 8. Under the circumstances, it would be appropriate that the parties shall maintain status quo for a period of four months or till the date said revisions are finally decided. With the aforesaid directions/observations, the writ petition is finally disposed of.