Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 1321 (ALL)

Virendra Prasad v. Bajarang Bali

2017-05-17

DEVENDRA KUMAR UPADHYAYA

body2017
JUDGMENT : 1. Heard Sri Q.M.Haq, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Suresh Chandra Srivastava, learned counsel representing opposite party no.1. 2. Late Birendra Prasad, chak holder no.529, who is the predecessor-in-interest of petitioner nos.1/1 to 1/7, was proposed a chak having an area of 11 decimal on gata nos.2750 and 2751. An objection against the said proposal made by the Assistant Consolidation Officer was filed by the chak holder no.529 before the Consolidation Officer under Section 20 (2) of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act stating therein that gata no.2748 is situated just in front of his sahan darwaja whereupon chak has been allocated to the respondent no.1-Bajrang Bali, chak holder no.438. It was stated that in plot no.2748, chak holder no.529 has installed hand pump and has also grown some plants. Accordingly, chak holder no.529 prayed before the Consolidation Officer that the chak allotted to him on plot nos. 2750 and 2751 be abolished and in its place he be allotted a chak no.2748. The Consolidation Officer, however, rejected the objection filed by the chak holder no.529 by means of the order dated 06.07.1999 stating therein that the objections preferred by the chak holder no.529 were barred by limitation for the reason that the publication under Section 20 of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act in the village was made long ago i.e.25.03.1991. 3. Feeling aggrieved by the said order dated 06.07.1999, an appeal was preferred by late Birendra Prasad, chak holder no.529 before the Settlement Officer, Consolidation under Section 21 (2) of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, which has been dismissed by the appellate court by means of the order dated 14.12.1999. The order dated 14.12.1999 was challenged in a revision petition by the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioner nos.1/1 to 1/7 before the Deputy Director of Consolidation under Section 48 of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, which too has been dismissed by the revisional court on 29.01.2000. 4. Submission of learned counsel for the petitioners is that it is not in dispute that gata no.2748, which was allotted in the chak of opposite party no.1, existed just in front of the dwelling house of chak holder no.529 and hence, it would have been equitable if the chak holder no.529 was allotted his chak comprising of gata no.2748. 4. Submission of learned counsel for the petitioners is that it is not in dispute that gata no.2748, which was allotted in the chak of opposite party no.1, existed just in front of the dwelling house of chak holder no.529 and hence, it would have been equitable if the chak holder no.529 was allotted his chak comprising of gata no.2748. It has further been contended by learned counsel for the petitioners that on account of new allotment of chaks, the petitioner's chak which is now numbered as khasra plot no.2271 has become locked from all sides inasmuch as the said plot does not have any access. Submission, thus, is that the chak allotted to late Birendra has been rendered un-cultivable inasmuch as the petitioners will not have any access to the said plot in absence of chak road. 5. The final map prepared on conclusion of the consolidation operations in the village is available on record as annexure CA3 to the counter affidavit. The total area of chak of the petitioners which is now situated on new plot no.2271 is only 11 decimal whereas the chak belonging to opposite party no.1 which now exists on new plot no.2269 has a larger area. It is difficult to imagine that any agriculture worth the name could be possible on an area of 11 decimal. 6. It is also noticeable that the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioner nos.1/1 to 1/7 has been negligent in pursuing his case and the publication under Section 20 of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act in the village was made way back on 25.03.1991. The objection under Section 20 (2) of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act was filed only after lapse of a considerable period on 12.08.1996. In the meantime, an appeal was also decided, namely, appeal no.1359/459 on 25.11.1991 whereby the chak of opposite party no.1 was altered. 7. The objection under Section 20 (2) of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act was filed only after lapse of a considerable period on 12.08.1996. In the meantime, an appeal was also decided, namely, appeal no.1359/459 on 25.11.1991 whereby the chak of opposite party no.1 was altered. 7. There is no quarrel on the legal proposition that in proceedings under U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, delay in filing objections ought to be ordinarily condoned for various reasons, however, a perusal of the order passed by the Settlement Officer, Consolidation, Gonda on 14.12.1999 reveals that it is not only that the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioner i.e. chak holder no.529 filed objection before the Consolidation Officer against the proposal of chak made by the Assistant Consolidation Officer after considerable delay but also that during this intervening period, chak of opposite party no.1 was altered on an appeal was decided by the appellate court on 25.11.1991. In such a situation, I do not find any illegality in the orders passed by the Settlement Officer, Consolidation and the Consolidation Officer, who rightly refused to interfere in the objection preferred by the chak holder no.529. 8. A perusal of the order of the revisional court dated 29.01.2000, which is under challenge herein, reveals that the chak holder no.529 has been allotted chak on gata nos.2750 and 2751 which are near the original number belonging to the chak holder no.529 and the land contained in these two gatas are equivalent in value and even otherwise to the land comprising in the original holding of the said chak holder no.529. 9. For the reasons given above, I am not inclined to interfere in this petition, which is hereby dismissed.