Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 3085 (ALL)

Ramkali v. D. D. C. , Sambhal Camp Amroha

2016-09-08

RAM SURAT RAM (MAURYA)

body2016
JUDGMENT Ram Surat Ram (Maurya), J. – Heard Sri Kripa Shankar Yadav and Sri Rama Shanker Mishra for the petitioners and Sri Brajesh Shukla for the contesting respondents. With the consent of the parties writ petitions are decided finally at this stage. 2. Smt. Ram Kali was allotted(Chak No. 751) a single chak from the stage of Assistant Consolidation Officer on plot No. 599 etc. Similarly, Smt. Roopwati and others(Chak No. 323) were allotted single chak from the stage of Assistant Consolidation Officer on plot nos. 269 and 760. Consolidation Officer by order dated 4.3.2015 modified the chak of Smt. Ram Kali. However, the chak remained on the same place. Consolidation Officer by order dated 27.3.2015 modified the chak of Tota Ram and allotted plot nos. 744, 755 and 217. In the chak allotment matters, the appeals were filed by Smt. Kamla Devi (Chak-holder No. 101). Settlement Officer, Consolidation by order dated 1.6.2015 allowed the appeal of Smt. Kamla Devi and allotted chak to Smt. Kamla devi on plot nos.269 and 833 etc. due to which chak of Tota Ram was disturbed and he was allotted chak on plot No. 599 etc. in consequence thereof chak of Smt. Ram Kali was also disturbed and She was allotted chak on plot No. 921 etc. 3. According to Smt. Ram Kali her second chak on plot No. 921 is an uran chak, while her chak on plot No. 601 etc. was on her original holding where she was having private source of irrigation. The order of Settlement Officer, Consolidation was challenged in revision by heirs of Total Ram in Revision No. 79/698. Deputy Director of Consolidation dismissed the revision of heirs of Total Ram by order dated 25.12.2015 . Hence, Writ B No. 37434 of 2016 has been filed by them. Smt. Ram Kali filed a revision (registered as Revision No. 115/756). Deputy Director of Consolidation by a separate order dated 28.12.2015 dismissed the revision of Ram Kali. Hence Writ B No. 34518 of 2016 has been filed. 4. The arguments of Ram Kali was that plot nos. 600 etc. were her original holding where she was having her private source of irrigation. In fact the land was inherited by Smt. Ram Kali and her son Mahendra and Rajendra from Late Prakash. Now, separate chaks were carved out for Smt. Ram Kali and her sons Mahendra and Rajendra. 4. The arguments of Ram Kali was that plot nos. 600 etc. were her original holding where she was having her private source of irrigation. In fact the land was inherited by Smt. Ram Kali and her son Mahendra and Rajendra from Late Prakash. Now, separate chaks were carved out for Smt. Ram Kali and her sons Mahendra and Rajendra. Settlement Officer, Consolidation has allotted totally uran chak to Smt. Ram Kali, which is second chak also on plot No. 921 etc. Thus, material prejudice has been caused to her. 5. The argument of Smt. Roopwati and others was that plot nos. 269 and 270 were road side land in which the they were cosharers but they were deprived from roadside land without assigning any reason. 6. I have considered the arguments of the counsel for the parties. 7. It is not denied that plot No. 269 and 270 are road side land in which Smt. Roopwati and others were co-sharers. However, counsel for the respondents states that in both plots their share was upto the extent of 0.017 hectare and looking to the small share, she was not allotted chak at this place while Bhagwat was having mentha factory in plot No. 270 which was left as chak out. Due to mentha factory he was allotted single chak on plot nos.269 and 270. 8. His reply in respect of Smt. Ram Kali was that sons of Smt. Ram Kali were allotted chak on plot No. 926 etc. Her chak No. 921 etc. is near to chak of her sons. Thus no prejudice has been caused to her. 9. Since plot nos. 269 and 270 were road side land as such according to the circular of Consolidation Commissioner and in the light of various judgments of this Court a tenure holder of the land on road side is entitled to allotment of chak on that plot. Similarly Smt. Roop Kali was having her private source of irrigation, which was also disturbed. Deputy Director of Consolidation dismissed the revision without considering her grievance. 10. In the result, the writ petitions succeed and are allowed. The orders of Deputy Director of Consolidation dated 25.12.2015 and 28.12.2015 passed in both the revisions are set aside. Similarly Smt. Roop Kali was having her private source of irrigation, which was also disturbed. Deputy Director of Consolidation dismissed the revision without considering her grievance. 10. In the result, the writ petitions succeed and are allowed. The orders of Deputy Director of Consolidation dated 25.12.2015 and 28.12.2015 passed in both the revisions are set aside. The matter is remanded to Deputy Director of Consolidation to decide both the revisions afresh after hearing the parties, expeditiously, without granting unnecessary adjournment to either of the parties, preferably within a period of three months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order before the said authority. Petition allowed.