Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 2504 (ALL)

Ram Bhajan v. D. D. C.

2016-07-19

RAM SURAT RAM (MAURYA)

body2016
JUDGMENT Ram Surat Ram (Maurya), J. – By the order dated 27.5.2013, this Court has vacated the interim order. The petitioner has moved an application for recall of the order dated 27.3.2013 along with delay condonation application. The petitioner has also moved another application for grant of interim order. The matter came up before this Court and respondent-1 has objection as such the writ petition itself be heard finally on merit. There is no need to recall the order dated 27.5.2013 or to grant any fresh interim order. Accordingly both the applications are rejected. 2. Heard Sri A. K. Sharma for the petitioner and Sri S. K. Pal for the contesting respondents. 3. The writ petition has been filed against the order of Deputy Director of Consolidation dated 31.3.1993 passed in chak allotment proceeding under UP Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'). 4. The petitioner as well as respondent-2 are real brothers and co-sharer in plot no. 1146. There is dispute between the parties for allotment of chak on plot no. 1146 in northern side. Earlier Mohan, respondent-2 was not given chak on plot no. 1146 according to his share, therefore, he filed an objection claiming for allotment of chak according to his half share. His objection was dismissed by the Consolidation Officer. He filed an appeal against the order of Consolidation Officer. The appeal was heard by Settlement Officer Consolidation who by the order dated 28.6.1991 found that plot no. 1265 was allotted in the chak of Mohan alone in access of his share on this plot. While Ram Bhajan, the petitioner was allotted chak on plot no. 1146 in access of his share in this plot. Thus claim of Mohan was liable to be accepted. However, while allowing the appeal, the Settlement Officer Consolidation has recorded that both the parties have agreed that valuation of 17.22. anna be reduced from plot no. 1265 and be allotted to Mohan on plot no. 1146 and on this place chak of Mohan will be in southern side and chak of Ram Bhajan will be in northern side. On this finding, although he allowed the appeal but allotted chak to Ram Bhajan in northern side on plot no. 1146. 5. Mohan filed a revision against the aforesaid order. 1146 and on this place chak of Mohan will be in southern side and chak of Ram Bhajan will be in northern side. On this finding, although he allowed the appeal but allotted chak to Ram Bhajan in northern side on plot no. 1146. 5. Mohan filed a revision against the aforesaid order. In the revision, Mohan has stated that from the stage of Assistant Consolidation Officer, he was allotted chak in northern side which was correctly allotted. Although the house and trees of Ram Bhajan were in southern side in plot no. 1146 but the Settlement Officer Consolidation has illegally allotted chak to Mohan in southern side. Thus there will be the dispute between the parties for ever. Apart from it other demands were also made in the memorandum of revision as well as by way of amendment application filed in revision on 19.12.1992. The Deputy Director of Consolidation by the impugned order dated 31.3.1993 found that Mohan in his affidavit filed on 6.1.1993 has stated that from the stage of Assistant Consolidation Officer his chak was in northern side in front of his house. The affidavit dated 6.1.1993 remain un-controverted by Ram Bhajan. Thus the revision is liable to be allowed and chak of Mohan is liable to be allotted in northern side. On this finding he allowed the revision and allotted chak to Mohan in northern side and also allotted chak to Ram Bhajan in southern side. Hence this writ petition has been filed. 6. The petitioner in paragraph-9 of the writ petition has stated that northern side of plot no. 1146 is situated in front of his house. Before the Settlement Officer Consolidation, Mohan agreed for allotment of chak to the petitioner in northern side, therefore, his revision was not maintainable. But without considering the consent given by Mohan before the appellate court, the revision has been illegally allowed. The order of revisional court is illegal and liable to be set aside. 7. I have considered the arguments of the counsel for the parties and examined the records. 8. Before the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Mohan has stated that from the stage of Assistant Consolidation Officer, he allotted chak at this place in northern side. The petitioner had neither filed any objection under Section 20 of the Act nor he filed any appeal claiming in northern side of his chak. 8. Before the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Mohan has stated that from the stage of Assistant Consolidation Officer, he allotted chak at this place in northern side. The petitioner had neither filed any objection under Section 20 of the Act nor he filed any appeal claiming in northern side of his chak. It is under some mistake, the Settlement Officer Consolidation has allotted chak to the petitioner in the northern side. A perusal of the order of Settlement Officer Consolidation shows that before the Settlement Officer Consolidation, the parties agreed that valuation of 17.22 anna be reduced from plot no. 1265 and allotted on plot no. 1146. As such there is no clear consent for allotment of chak to the petitioner in northern side. This finding was challenged in the revision. In the affidavit filed before the revisional court on 6.1.1993 it has been clearly stated that house of Mohan was situated in northern side as such he has entitled for allotment of chak in northern side. This affidavit was remain un-controverted. In such circumstances, the Deputy Director of Consolidation has rightly allowed the revision. 9. The counsel for the petitioner submits that matter may be remanded to the court below to ascertain as to whether the house of the petitioner is situated in northern side or in southern side. But in the facts of the case that Mohan was allotted chak in northern side from the stage of Assistant Consolidation Officer and the petitioner did not file any objection against the proposed chak of Mohan. Therefore it is not appropriate for this Court to remand the case for raising a fresh dispute between the parties. 10. The writ petition has no merit, it is dismissed. Petition dismissed.