Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 3926 (ALL)

Kumar Pal v. State of U. P.

2016-12-06

MANOJ KUMAR GUPTA

body2016
JUDGMENT Manoj Kumar Gupta, J. Heard counsel for the petitioner, learned standing counsel for respondent Nos. 1 to 3 and Sri D.K. Tripathi for respondent Nos. 5 to 7. 2. The petitioner has assailed the validity of the orders passed during the proceedings for allotment of chaks. The objection of the petitioner filed before the Consolidation Officer was allowed by order dated 6 September 2013. Still the petitioner felt aggrieved and filed an appeal, which was allowed by order dated 13 January 2014 in part. The petitioner carried the matter in revision, but the revision has been dismissed by order dated 20 September 2016. 3. Counsel for the petitioner submitted that Gata No. 1148 measuring 0.509 hectare was the original holding of the petitioner. It was also his largest holding and over which their exist a source of irrigation (boring). The petitioner has not been allotted any chak over Gata No. 1148, thus causing irreparable injury to him. The authorities have refused to consider the grievance raised in this regard on the sole ground that in case any alteration is made, it will result in allotment of a third chak to the petitioner, which is not warranted. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 5 to 7 contended that the petitioner has not raised any objection before the Consolidation Officer in relation to Gata No. 1148. His objection was against his co-sharer Moti and was confined to the chaks allotted to him over Gata Nos. 1086 and 1092. It is further submitted that since the objection filed by the petitioner was allowed by the Consolidation Officer, consequently, the appeal filed by him was not maintainable. It is further pointed out that in the appeal, the contesting respondents were impleaded for the first time while raising a plea that a chak be carved out over Gata No. 1148. It is further submitted that even at the appellate stage, there was no plea that any boring exists over Gata No. 1148. 5. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 6. The Assistant Consolidation Officer proposed two chaks in favour of the petitioner, both of which were on his original holding. It is further submitted that even at the appellate stage, there was no plea that any boring exists over Gata No. 1148. 5. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 6. The Assistant Consolidation Officer proposed two chaks in favour of the petitioner, both of which were on his original holding. The first chak was proposed was over Gata No. 1086/2 and the land of adjoining gatas and the other chak over Gata No. 1093/1 and the land of adjoining gatas. The petitioner filed objections before the Consolidation Officer arraying his co-sharer Moti alone as a party. Therein, the petitioner raised a grievance that the manner in which the chak was carved out in his favour over Gata No. 1092 and 1086 is not appropriate and the shape of the same should be altered. There was no objection filed by the petitioner in respect of Gata No. 1148. The objections filed by the petitioner was allowed by the Consolidation Officer and the direction of his plot was changed as demanded by him. In the appeal, the petitioner for the first time raised the claim for allotment of a chak over Gata No. 1148 by arraying the contesting respondents. In the opinion of the Court, once no objection was filed by the petitioner before the Consolidation Officer for allotment of a chak over Gata No.1148, the said plea could not have been raised for the first time in appeal by arraying the contesting respondent. It also appears from the perusal of the record that in the appeal, no plea was raised by the petitioner in regard to existence of a source of irrigation over Gata No. 1148. The appellate authority as well as the revisional authority have entered a specific finding that both the chaks which have been carved out in favour of the petitioner are over his original holding. The said finding is not under challenge. In such view of the matter, this Court does not find any reason to interfere with the impugned orders. 7. The writ petition lacks merit and is dismissed.