Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 2855 (ALL)

Naresh v. D. D. C.

2016-08-19

RAM SURAT RAM (MAURYA)

body2016
JUDGMENT Ram Surat Ram (Maurya), J. 1. Heard Sri M.D. Singh Shekhar, Senior Counsel, assisted by Sri Ashwini Kumar Srivastava, for the petitioners and Sri Akhilesh Chandra Shukla as well as Sri Suneet Rai for the respondents. 2. The writ petition has been filed against the orders of Consolidation Officer dated 6.8.2011, Settlement Officer, Consolidation dated 25.11.2011 and Deputy director of Consolidation dated 15.5.2012 passed in chak allotment proceeding under U.P. consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953(hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') 3. It is admitted that plot no.663 was the original holding of Ramzan from whom the petitioners have purchased an area of about 6-0-0 bigha while plot nos. 675 and 676 were the original holding of Ajay Veer (respondent-5). Initially the petitioners were proposed a chak (chak no.172) on plot no.662/2, 663/1, 663/2, 663/3,663/4, 663/5 and 663/5M. Ajay Veer filed his objection under Section 20 of the Act for allotment of chak on his original holding. Consolidation Officer by order dated 29.3.2008 dismissed the objection of Ajay Veer. Ajay Veer thereafter filed an appeal (registered as Appeal No.158 of 2008) before Settlement Officer, Consolidation and demanded his chak on plot nos. 671, 672, 673, 674 and 675. Settlement Officer, Consolidation by order dated 30.4.2008 allowed the appeal of Ajay Veer and allotted his chak on plot no.671 etc. taking it from the chak of Ramzan and Ramzan was allotted chak on plot no.666 etc. In this allotment chaks of Vijai Pal, Asha Ram, Bhagwandeen and Ajai Kumar were disturbed but they are not in contest thereafter. Ramzan challenged the order of Settlement officer, Consolidation in revision. The revision was heard by Deputy Director of Consolidation, who by order dated 19.2.2009 allowed the revision and again allotted chak to Ajay Veer on plot no.666 etc. and allotted plot no.670 etc. in the chak of Ramzan in which chak of Vijai Pal was also modified. Ajay Veer thereafter filed Writ B No.15413 of 2009. In this writ petition Ajay Veer had only impleaded Ramzan as contesting respondent-2 while respondent-1 was Deputy Director of Consolidation. No other chak holder was impleaded as respondent. The writ petition was heard by this Court and this Court by judgment dated 4.4.2011 held that both the parties were claiming their original holding in their chaks. However, by the impugned order the original holdings were not allotted in the chaks of the parties. No other chak holder was impleaded as respondent. The writ petition was heard by this Court and this Court by judgment dated 4.4.2011 held that both the parties were claiming their original holding in their chaks. However, by the impugned order the original holdings were not allotted in the chaks of the parties. Therefore, this Court set aside the orders of Consolidation Officer, Settlement Officer, Consolidation and Deputy Director of Consolidation and remanded the matter to Consolidation Officer to consider the grievance of Ajay Veer and Ramzan for allotment of their chak on their original holdings on plot no.676 and 663 respectively. After remand the case was decided by Consolidation Officer. Before Consolidation Officer Ramzan argued that while allotting chak to him he was given chak in the back portion on plot no.663 and was not given chak adjoining chak road. Consolidation Officer after hearing the parties by order dated 6.8.2011 allowed the objection of Ramzan and allotted chak to Ramzan on plot no.663 etc. taking it from the chak of respondent-5 as well as from the chak of the petitioners and the petitioners were substantially allotted chak on plot no.664 etc. It may be mentioned here that the land, which was deducted from the chak of the petitioners were valued at the rate of 40 paisa, 50 paisa and 70 paisa, while the petitioners were allotted chak on the land valued at the rate of 50 paisa and 70 paisa. Due to allotment of high valuation land, area of the chak of the petitioners was substantially reduced inasmuch as area of 0.847 hectare was taken from their chak and they were allotted an area of 0.585 hectare. Although plot nos. 662 and 663 were original holdings of the petitioners but their chak was substantially allotted on plot nos. 664 and 665. The petitioners challenged the aforesaid order in appeal. The appeal was heard by Settlement Officer, Consolidation, who by order dated 25.11.2011 dismissed the appeal. The petitioners filed a revision against the aforesaid order, which was dismissed by Deputy Director of Consolidation by order dated 15.5.2012. Hence, this writ petition has been filed. 4. The counsel for the petitioners submitted that from the stage of Assistant Consolidation Officer, the petitioners were allotted chak on plot nos.662, 663 etc. Consolidation Officer allotted chak to the petitioners in terms of the compromise between the parties filed on 20.7.2008. Hence, this writ petition has been filed. 4. The counsel for the petitioners submitted that from the stage of Assistant Consolidation Officer, the petitioners were allotted chak on plot nos.662, 663 etc. Consolidation Officer allotted chak to the petitioners in terms of the compromise between the parties filed on 20.7.2008. The chak of the petitioners was not challenged by any of the parties and was confirmed from the stage of Settlement Officer, Consolidation. The dispute before Settlement Officer, Consolidation, Deputy Director of Consolation and before this Court in earlier round of litigation was between Ramzan on the one hand and Ajay Veer on the other hand. Ajay Veer in his writ petition has impleaded Ramzan alone as contesting party and no one else. The judgment of this Court dated 4.4.2011 is between Ajay Veer and Ramzan as such chaks on their original holding have to be adjusted between them after remand and no other chak holders were liable to be disturbed. Consolidation Officer has illegally disturbed the chak of the petitioners, which was otherwise on their original holding. The petitioners were allotted uran chak on plot nos. 664 and 665, which were of high valuation land and due to allotment of high valuation land, area of their chak has been substantially reduced. The consolidation authorities have illegally ignored the compromise dated 20.7.2008, which was on the record. They have illegally failed to consider that the petitioners were deprived from their original holding and due to allotment of high valuation land, area of their chak has been substantially reduced. The orders of consolidation authorities, so far as they are against the petitioners are liable to be set aside. 5. On the other hand, in reply, the counsel for the respondents submitted that father of the petitioners was Pradhan of the village. He obtained signatures of various tenure holders on blank papers, which was subsequently utilized in the shape of compromise in the application dated 27.2.2008. Plot no.663 was the original holding of Ramzan. Ramzan executed a sale deed in favour of the petitioners in respect of 6-0-0 bigha land, while total area of plot no.663 was about 16-0-0 bigha land. On the basis of sale deed, the petitioners were allotted chak on the frontage of road while Ramzan was given chak on the back side. Before the Consolidation Officer, the objection of Ramzan was against the petitioners also. On the basis of sale deed, the petitioners were allotted chak on the frontage of road while Ramzan was given chak on the back side. Before the Consolidation Officer, the objection of Ramzan was against the petitioners also. Since Consolidation Officer has satisfied the demand of Ramzan as such Ramzan was not required to file any appeal. The appeal was filed by Ajay Veer and the parties impleaded in appeal of Ajay Veer, were subsequently impleaded in the revision filed by Ramzan. However, this Court has reopened the matter and directed Consolidation Officer to consider the allotment of chak on the original holding of the parties. In such circumstances entire chak allotment dispute was reopened by this Court and Consolidation Officer has rightly allotted chak to Ramzan on his original holding. Therefore, all the consolidation authorities have rightly refused to give any relief to the petitioners. 6. I have considered the arguments of the counsel for the parties. 7. Although this Court has remanded the matter for allotment of chak to the parties on their original holding, setting aside orders of Consolidation Officer, Settlement Officer, Consolidation and Deputy Director of Consolidation. By these orders, chaks of several chak holders were changed. After remand, lis will not remained in between Ajay Veer and Ramzan. Series of chaks changed by consolidation authorities in earlier round of litigation have to be re-adjusted by consolidation authorities. Principle that judgment inter se parties is binding upon the parties itself, would not be applied in this matter. 8. However, if Consolidation Officer has reopened the entire dispute, then he has to consider grievance of the petitioners also as admittedly the petitioners have purchased an area of about 6-0-0 bigha in plot no.663 and which was their original holding. But after remand, Consolidation Officer by order dated 6.8.2011 has allotted only an area of about 0.004 hectare on plot no.663 to the petitioners, while major area of plot no.664/2, 665/2 were allotted in their chak. Consolidation Officer has allotted high valuation land due to which area of the chak of the petitioners has been substantially reduced inasmuch as by taking an area of 0.847 hectare from their chak, they were allotted an area of 0.585 hectare. These facts have not been noticed by all the consolidation authorities. Consolidation Officer has allotted high valuation land due to which area of the chak of the petitioners has been substantially reduced inasmuch as by taking an area of 0.847 hectare from their chak, they were allotted an area of 0.585 hectare. These facts have not been noticed by all the consolidation authorities. Although consolidation authorities have allotted chak to Ramzan on his original holding but at the same time no reason has been assigned depriving the petitioners from their original holding. 9. In the result the writ petition succeeds and is allowed. The orders dated 15.5.2012, 25.11.2011 and 6.8.2011 passed by Deputy Director of Consolidation, Settlement Officer, Consolidation and Consolidation Officer, respectively, are set aside. The matter is remanded to Consolidation Officer concerned, who shall decide the objection afresh in accordance with law in view of the observations made above.