Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 3537 (ALL)

Narendra v. D. D. C. Allahabad

2016-10-21

RAM SURAT RAM (MAURYA)

body2016
JUDGMENT Ram Surat Ram (Maurya), J. – Heard Sri Suresh Chandra Varma, for the petitioner, Sri V.S. Kushwaha and Sri R.B. Singh, for respondent-4. 2. The writ petition has been filed against the order of Deputy Director of Consolidation dated 26.07.2016, passed in chak allotment proceeding under U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). 3. Narendra (the petitioner) (chak-432) and Suresh (respondent-4) (chak- 1377) are real brothers. Plots 1/5 (area 0.0809 hectare), 3506 (area 0.1720 hectare), 3513/1 (area 0.0510 hectare), 3514/2 (area 0.0100 hectare), 3515/3 (area 0.0202 hectare), 3518/2 (area 0.0893 hectare), 3520/1 (area 0.0546 hectare) and 4225/4050 (area 0.1150 hectare) were original holdings of the petitioner. Initially plots 1/5, 3506 and 3513/1 were chak out. Consolidation Officer, by order dated 01.07.1999, determined valuation of plot 3506 at the rate of 50 paisa. The petitioner was proposed a single chak on plots 3506, 3507 and 3509 of total area 0.5203 hectare. 4. Plots 1/5 (area 0.0809 hectare), 3506 (area 0.2529 hectare), 3513/1 (area 0.0010 hectare), 3513/6 (area 0.500 hectare), 3514-m (area 0.0100 hectare), 3515/3 (area 0.0203 hectare), 3518/1 (area 0.0893 hectare), 3520/1 (area 0.0546 hectare) and 4225/4050 (area 0.1150 hectare) were original holdings of Suresh (respondent-4) (chak-1377). Initially plots 1/5, 3506, 3513/1 and 3513/6 were chak out. Consolidation Officer, by order dated 30.08.2000, determined valuation of plot 3506 at the rate of 50 paisa. Initially Suresh was proposed a single chak on plots 3520, 3521 and 3523 of total area 0.1846 hectare. After determination of valuation of plot 3506, Assistant Settlement Officer Consolidation, by order dated 29.03.2003, allotted second chak on plot 3506 (area 0.1634 hectare). 5. Suresh filed an objection for deleting his chak on plots 3520 etc. and allotting a single chak on his largest part of original holding of plot 3506. Consolidation Officer, by order dated 22.12.2001 dismissed his objection. Suresh filed an appeal from aforesaid order. In the appeal, he also raised his grievance that although Consolidation Officer determined valuation of plot 3506 but its valuation was not included in his chak. Assistant Settlement Officer Consolidation, by order dated 29.03.2003, allotted second chak to Suresh on plot 3506 (area 0.1634 hectare) in lieu of an area of 0.2529 hectare of plot 3506 as recorded in CH Form-23 of Suresh. Similarly in lieu of 0.2892 hectare of original holding, he was allotted chak of the area 0.1846 hectare. Assistant Settlement Officer Consolidation, by order dated 29.03.2003, allotted second chak to Suresh on plot 3506 (area 0.1634 hectare) in lieu of an area of 0.2529 hectare of plot 3506 as recorded in CH Form-23 of Suresh. Similarly in lieu of 0.2892 hectare of original holding, he was allotted chak of the area 0.1846 hectare. Thus his total original holdings which were included in chak allotment was 0.5421 hectare and he was allotted an area of 0.3480 hectare. Reduction in area was more than 35% of his original holdings. 6. Consolidation Officer, by order dated 26.12.2001, passed in the objection of Kanhai Lal and others disturbed chak of Narendra (the petitioner) and allotted a second chak on plots 3904 etc to him. Narendra filed a time barred appeal for restoring his chak of the stage of Assistant Consolidation Officer. Assistant Settlement Officer Consolidation, by order dated 10.03.2003, allowed the appeal of the petitioner and restored his chak of the stage of Assistant Consolidation Officer. Narendra was allotted chak of total area 0.5203 hectare in lieu of his original holdings of 0.4611 hectare thus his allotted area was increased more than 10%. 7. Suresh filed a time barred revision (registered as Revision No. 332/425) against order of Assistant Settlement Officer Consolidation dated 29.03.2003, on 22.11.2014, along with delay condonation application. Deputy Director of Consolidation, after hearing the parties, by order dated 26.07.2016, condoned delay and allowed the revision. He found that by the orders of subordinate authorities about 40% area of the chak of Suresh was reduced and area of the chak of the petitioner was increased although both were real brothers. He took an area of 0.1994 hectare from the chak of the petitioner and allotted him a second chak of its valuation to him on plots 3520/2 etc. of area 0.0900 hectare. Hence this writ petition has been filed. 8. The counsel for the petitioner submitted that Suresh did not file any objection/appeal against the petitioner. Suresh impleaded Kanhai and others as opposite parties in his appeal. His appeal was allowed by order dated 29.03.2003. Provisional Consolidation Scheme was confirmed in the village in 2003. CH Form-23 and 45 were prepared and distributed to the chak holders. Consolidation operation in the unit has been finalized and notification under Section 52 of the Act was issued on 19.08.2013. His appeal was allowed by order dated 29.03.2003. Provisional Consolidation Scheme was confirmed in the village in 2003. CH Form-23 and 45 were prepared and distributed to the chak holders. Consolidation operation in the unit has been finalized and notification under Section 52 of the Act was issued on 19.08.2013. Suresh filed revision on 24.11.2014 against the petitioner and for the first time set up his claim against the petitioner, after close of consolidation operation. The revision against the petitioner was not maintainable. There was no ground to condone inordinate delay in filing the revision. After about 13 years, Deputy Director of Consolidation has illegally disturbed the chak of the petitioner. The order of respondent-1 is illegal and liable to be set aside. 9. I have considered the arguments of the counsel for the parties and examined record. Consolidation Officer committed a glaring mistake, inasmuch as, although by order dated 30.08.2000 valuation of plot 3506 (area 0.2529 hectare) was determined but he did not allot any chak in lieu of this plot to Suresh. Assistant Settlement Officer Consolidation, by order dated 29.03.2003, although allowed the appeal of Suresh but allotted second chak to him on plot 3506 of the area of 0.1634 hectare in lieu of an area of 0.2529 hectare of plot 3506 as recorded in CH Form-23 of Suresh. 10. Deputy Director of Consolidation found that by the orders of subordinate authorities about 40% area of the chak of Suresh was reduced and area of the chak of the petitioner was increased although both were real brothers. Under Section 19 (1) (b) of the Act, area of the allotted chak should not differ more than 25% of the original holdings. This findings could not be challenged by the petitioner. So far as arguments that Suresh did not set up his claim against the petitioner at the stage of objection/appeal is concerned, a perusal of objection/appeal of Suresh shows that, he had through out claimed for allotment of chak on plot 3506, which was his largest original holding and by impugned order area of his chak on plot 3506 has been increased. The petitioner was allotted a second chak on plot 3520 etc. which was his original holding. 11. So far as delay in filing the revision is concerned, a Full Bench of this Court in Rama Kant Singh v. DDC and others, AIR 1974 All. The petitioner was allotted a second chak on plot 3520 etc. which was his original holding. 11. So far as delay in filing the revision is concerned, a Full Bench of this Court in Rama Kant Singh v. DDC and others, AIR 1974 All. 226 (FB) held that once record has been summoned, Deputy Director of Consolidation can examined legality and propriety of the orders of subordinate authorities, suo moto in exercise of his powers under Section 48 (1) of the Act, although delay cannot be condoned. 12. Supreme Court in Roshan Deen v. Preeti Lal, AIR 2002 SC 33 , held that we are greatly disturbed by the insensitivity reflected in the impugned judgment rendered by the learned Single Judge in a case where judicial mind would be tempted to utilize all possible legal measures to impart justice to a man mutilated so outrageously by his cruel destiny. The High Court non-suited him in exercise of a supervisory and extraordinary jurisdiction envisaged under Article 227 of the Constitution. Time and again this Court has reminded that the power conferred on the High Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution is to advance justice and not to thwart it (vide State of U.P. v. District Judge, Unnao, AIR 1984 SC 1401 ). The very purpose of such constitutional powers being conferred on the High Courts is that no man should be subjected to injustice by violating the law. The lookout of the High Court is, therefore, not merely to pick out any error of law through an academic angle but to see whether injustice has resulted on account of any erroneous interpretation of law. If justice became the by-product of an erroneous view of law the High Court is not expected to erase such justice in the name of correcting the error of law. In Mohammad Swaleh v. II Addl. District Judge and others, AIR 1988 SC 94 and Ramesh Chandra Sankla v. Vikram Cement, (2008) 14 SCC 58 , it has been held that writ jurisdiction cannot be exercised for restoring illegal orders. 13. In view of aforesaid discussion, substantial justice has been done between the parties. No material prejudice has been caused to the petitioner. No interference is required by this Court. The writ petition is dismissed. Writ Petition Dismissed.