Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 2592 (ALL)

Khaderu v. D. D. C.

2016-07-27

RAM SURAT RAM (MAURYA)

body2016
JUDGMENT Ram Surat Ram (Maurya),J. Supplementary affidavit filed today is taken on record. 2. Heard Sri Ramesh Rai, along with Sri Hari Pratap Gupta for the petitioners and Sri S.P. Pandey for the respondents. 3. This petition has been filed against the order of CO dated 23.12.2009, SOC dated 23.12.2010 and DDC dated 4.4.2016, passed in chak allotment proceeding under U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'). 4. From the stage of ACO, the petitioner was allotted two chaks, the first chak was allotted on plot nos. 78 and 79 of an area of 0.210 hectare and the second chak was allotted on plot nos. 128, etc. of an area of 0.400 hectare. The petitioners filed an objection for allotment of chak on plot no. 77. It has been stated by the petitioners that in plot no. 77, he has installed a boring and also planted 77 trees over it. It may be mentioned that total area of plot no. 77 was 0.582 hectare, in which the petitioners have 1/4 share. A perusal of CH Form 2A of the petitioners shows that only eight trees of Eucalyptus, four trees of Sheesham and three trees of Neem were found on plot no. 77/1, while on the remaining sub-plots of plot no. 77, no tree was found. The CO dismissed the objection of the petitioners. The petitioners filed an appeal against the aforesaid order. SOC in his order dated 23.12.2010 found that the boring and trees of the petitioners are existing on plot no. 77, but so far as trees are concerned, they are falling in the area of nalla, which being the land of the category mentioned in Section 132 of U.P. Act No. 1 of 1951, as such, it cannot be allotted in the chak of the petitioner. On this finding, he dismissed the appeal of the petitioners. The petitioners challenged the aforesaid order in revision, which has been dismissed by the order dated 4.4.2016. Hence, this petition has been filed. 5. I have considered the arguments of counsel for the petitioners and examined the record. The argument of the counsel for the petitioners that their second chak is uran chak is not liable to be accepted, as second chak is allotted on plot no. 128, which is original holding of the petitioners. The petitioners have already been allotted a chak on plot no. The argument of the counsel for the petitioners that their second chak is uran chak is not liable to be accepted, as second chak is allotted on plot no. 128, which is original holding of the petitioners. The petitioners have already been allotted a chak on plot no. 78, adjacent to plot no. 77, thus, a perusal of CH Form 2A shows that the petitioner has a boring in plot no. 78. His purpose for irrigation is served for this chak. 6. In the circumstances, this court is not inclined to interfere in chak allotment matters. However, the boring and trees are existing in plot no. 77 also, which are mentioned in CH Form 2A of the petitioners. 7. So far as the trees are concerned, their valuation has been fixed as mentioned in CH Form 2A, but valuation of boring has not been fixed. In the circumstances, the CO may assess the valuation of boring, after giving opportunity of hearing to the parties and shall award compensation of boring and trees to the petitioners, within two months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order before him. With the aforesaid observations, the petition is disposed of.