Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 2575 (ALL)

Palakdhari v. D. D. C.

2016-07-26

RAM SURAT RAM (MAURYA)

body2016
JUDGMENT Ram Surat Ram (Maurya),J. Supplementary affidavit filed today is taken on record. 2. Heard Sri Govind Krishna for the petitioner and Sri V.K. Chandel for the caveator. 3. The writ petition has been filed against the orders of Settlement Officer, Consolidation dated 18.7.2011 and Deputy Director of Consolidation dated 6.5.2016 passed in chak allotment proceeding under U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953. 4. There was a partition between the cosharers of chak no.154 by the Consolidation Officer by order dated 18.01.2010. Palakdhari (the petitioner) filed an appeal stating therein that the house of the appellant is in southern side, adjoining to chak as such his chak be carved out in east west instead of north-south on plot no.177 and a chak road be also carved out on plots 157, 158, 159, 160, 161 and 177. The appeal was allowed by the order of Settlement Officer, Consolidation dated 25.5.2010, Thereafter one of the cosharers, namely, Ram Naresh filed an application for recall of the aforesaid order, on which the order was recalled and thereafter the petitioner challenged the order in which Settlement Officer, Consolidation made a spot inspection and prepared an inspection memo. He also prepared the map, which was signed by the parties. Subsequently, Settlement Officer, Consolidation found that the amendment chart attached with the order dated 25.5.2010 was not correctly prepared. Therefore, he by order dated 18.7.2011 amended the amendment chart. In this amendment chart, an area of 0.097 hectare of plot no.177 was taken out and was allotted in the chak of Ram Naresh and chak of the petitioner was shifted towards east. Thus, the petitioner has chak in east-west at this place. The chak road was also shifted slightly. The petitioner challenged the aforesaid order in revision, which has been dismissed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation. Hence, this writ petition has been filed. 5. I have considered the arguments of the counsel for the petitioner and examined the record. 6. A perusal of the memorandum of appeal shows that the petitioner himself demanded for carvation of his chak in east-west on plot no.177 and carving out a chak road through plots 156 etc. By the impugned order dated 18.7.2011 the chak of the petitioner i.e. chak no.154 ka was allotted in east-west and chak road in all the side of this chak has been carved out. By the impugned order dated 18.7.2011 the chak of the petitioner i.e. chak no.154 ka was allotted in east-west and chak road in all the side of this chak has been carved out. The Settlement Officer, Consolidation during spot inspection found that the northern portion of plot no.177 was in front of the house of Ram Naresh as such northern portion was given in the chak of Ram Naresh and southern portion was given in the chak of the petitioner. Thus, chak was carved out according to the demand of the petitioner. 7. A perusal of the order of Consolidation Officer dated 18.1.2010 shows that in the southern side of plot no.177/2, area 0.0445 hectare, there was abadi and grove. This portion was left as chak out. Thus, abadi of the petitioner is existing in southern side. It is admitted that abadi of Ram Naresh is existing in plot no.340, which is in northern side of plot no.177. Thus, by taking a northern portion from the chak of the petitioner on plot no.177 he has allotted eastern portion according to his demand as made by him to carve out chak east-west. 8. The counsel for the petitioner at the last submits that map as prepared by Settlement Officer, Consolidation during spot inspection on 16.7.2011 be not changed. A perusal of the amendment chart attached to the order dated 18.7.2011 shows that the amendment chart has been prepared according to the map prepared by the Settlement Officer, Consolidation during spot inspection dated 16.7.2011. Thus, there is no reason to change spot position carved out in map. The counsel for the respondents also admits that this amendment chart is according to this very map and there is no reason to change this map. With the aforesaid observation relating to map, as prepared during spot inspection, the writ petition is disposed of.