Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 102 (ALL)

Chandradeep v. Chief Revenue Officer/D. D. C.

2017-01-09

ANJANI KUMAR MISHRA

body2017
JUDGMENT Anjani Kumar Mishra, J. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is Shri Ashutosh Kumar Singh. His name has wrongly been entered in the computer data base as Ashutosh Kumar Srivastava. 2. Computer section is directed to correct the name of counsel for the petitioner as Ashutosh Kumar Singh in place of Ashutosh Kumar Srivastava. 3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri C.K. Rai, learned counsel appearing for the respondents and learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents. 4. Although, learned counsel for the petitioner has made detailed submissions, he insists that a copy of the written argument, furnished by him, may also be taken on record. The same is accepted and is taken on record. However, the same shall not be considered, as already noticed herein above, his detailed oral submissions are being considered. 5. The writ petition is directed against an order passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation accepting a reference made by him under Section 48 (3) of UP Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (herein after referred to as 'Act, 1953). 6. This reference was prepared because the consolidation staff, when prepared the final consolidation records, detected certain mistakes in the revenue records. It was detected that there were double entries regarding certain plots. It was also found that a plot, which was recorded as a pond and over which, the name of the petitioner's predecessor, in interest, had been ordered to be expunged by the order passed by the competent consolidation court, had also not been implemented in the revenue records. 7. The reference prepared in this regard was forwarded to the Consolidation Officer, who accepted. However, on a revision filed by the petitioner, the order was set aside on the ground that the Consolidation Officer had no jurisdiction to accept it, which jurisdiction was with the DDC alone. 8. The contesting respondent, thereafter, came before this Court by means of Writ Petition No. 61018 of 2014. This writ petition was allowed vide order dated 17.11.2014. The order, passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation, was set aside and the matter was remanded back with a direction that the reference be forwarded again to the DDC for its fresh consideration on merits. 9. The order impugned, dated 22.2.2016, has been passed in pursuance of the directions issued by the Writ Court in Writ Petition No. 61018 of 2014 aforesaid. 10. 9. The order impugned, dated 22.2.2016, has been passed in pursuance of the directions issued by the Writ Court in Writ Petition No. 61018 of 2014 aforesaid. 10. The first contention, raised by learned counsel for the petitioner, is that the correction has been ordered on an application under Section 42 A of the Act, 1953, which had been filed after the village had been de-notified by a notification issued under Section 52 of the Act, 1953. An application under Section 42A of the Act, 1953, was not maintainable after the close of consolidation operations and the same has wrongly and illegally entertained and allowed. 11. The second contention, raised by learned counsel for the petitioner, is that he has no grievance as regards the correction of the double entry regarding his plots. However, there was no double entry with regard to Plot No. 1122, which is the petitioner's original holding and is valuable road-side land. This plot has been excluded from his chak and such exclusion and its inclusion in the chak of the opposite party, is patently illegal. 12. Shri C.K. Rai, learned counsel for the respondents has supported the impugned order. Referring to the CH Form 23 of the petitioner, it is submitted that as far as Plot No. 1122 is concerned, the area of this plot originally held by the petitioner, on the start of the consolidation operations, was only 0.017. By the amendment made in pursuance of the impugned order, the area of this plot still included in his chak is now 0.029. Even if it is accepted that this plot is valuable road-side land, as a result of consolidation operations, the petitioner's holding of this plot stands almost doubled even after the passing of the impugned orders. The petitioner is, therefore, no reason to be aggrieved. 13. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record. 14. The first contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that the proceedings had been initiated on an application under Section 42A of the Act, 1953, filed by the contesting respondents after the close of the consolidation operations, is factually incorrect. 15. 13. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record. 14. The first contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that the proceedings had been initiated on an application under Section 42A of the Act, 1953, filed by the contesting respondents after the close of the consolidation operations, is factually incorrect. 15. This is clear from the order passed by the Writ Court in the earlier writ petition, wherein it has been observed that the discrepancies in the revenue records had been detected by the consolidation staff while preparing final consolidation papers before they were sent it to the Tehsil for issuance of a notification under Section 52 of the Act, 1953. At that stage, before the consolidation operations were actually closed, an application filed under Section 42 of the Act, 1953, was clearly maintainable. 16. Moreover, the discrepancies in the revenue records, that have been corrected by the impugned order, were detected and reported suo moto by the consolidation staff. The application under Section 42A of the Act, had been filed by the contesting respondent, only after the matter was remanded back by the Writ Court vide order 17.11.2014. 17. Insofar as, the grievance of the petitioner regarding reduction in the area of Plot No. 1122, which was proposed in his chak, the submission made by learned counsel for the respondents has substance. 18. The CH Form 23 produced by learned counsel for the petitioner reveals that the area of this plot, comprised of his original holding was only 0.017. Against this area, even after its reduction by the impugned order, an area of 0.029 is still included in the chak of the petition. The petitioner, therefore, has no reason to be aggrieved because his holding of a valuable road-side plot has doubled on account of consolidation operations. 19. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the impugned order is found to be strictly in accordance with law. It suffers from no error, much less patent error, that would warrant interference. 20. The writ petition is completely devoid of merits and is, accordingly, dismissed.