Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 1331 (ALL)

Bhikhu v. A. D. C.

2017-05-18

DEVENDRA KUMAR UPADHYAYA

body2017
JUDGMENT : DEVENDRA KUMAR UPADHYAYA, J. 1. Heard Sri J.K.Sinha, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri A.R.Khan, learned counsel representing opposite party no.2. 2. This writ petition seeks to challenge the order dated 15.03.1980, passed by the Assistant Director of Consolidation, Gonda, whereby the revision petition filed by opposite party no.2 against the order dated 12.03.1979, passed by the Settlement Officer, Consolidation has been allowed and the opposite party no.2, who is chak holder no.66, has been given his chak comprising of khasra plot no.804, which has affected the chak of late Bhikhu, chak holder no.201, the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioner nos.1/1, 1/2 and 1/3. 3. The main thrust of Sri J.K.Sinha, learned counsel for the petitioners is that khasra plot no.804 was not the original holding of opposite party no.2 and further that he did not file any objection before the Consolidation Officer demanding a chak on khasra plot no.804. He has further stated that the opposite party no.2, by means of the impugned order passed by the Assistant Director of Consolidation, has been given the share of Mangla which was impermissible and also that he has been given more area of khasra plot no.804 in his chak than the area he deserved. 4. Sri A.R.Khan, learned counsel representing opposite party no.2 has opposed the writ petition and has stated that the alteration of chaks in respect of the petitioners and the opposite party no.2 made by the Assistant Director of Consolidation by passing the impugned order dated 15.03.1980 does not warrant any interference by this Court for the reason that distribution of chaks in this case have been done equitably. 5. While preparing the provisional consolidation scheme, learned Assistant Consolidation Officer proposed two chaks to opposite party no.2. The first chak comprised of khasra plot no.711M and 804M and the second chak comprised of khasra plot no.925, 1038M and 1039M. 6. The third chak as proposed by the Assistant Consolidation Officer to opposite party no.2 comprised of khasra plot no.5. 7. Against the chaks proposed by the Assistant Consolidation Officer, chak holder no.66, namely, opposite party no.2 filed objections before the Consolidation Officer, who altered the chaks of late Bhikhu and also that of opposite party no.2. From the chak of opposite party no.2, certain area existing near abadi was reduced and he was given a chak comprising of khasra plot no.1066. 8. From the chak of opposite party no.2, certain area existing near abadi was reduced and he was given a chak comprising of khasra plot no.1066. 8. It has been stated in para 4 of the writ petition that the petitioners as well as opposite party no.2, both filed appeals before the Settlement Officer, Consolidation challenging the order passed by the Consolidation Officer. By means of the order dated 12.03.1979 passed by the Settlement Officer, Consolidation the appeals of the petitioners and that of opposite party no.2 were dismissed. The order dated 12.09.1979 is on record as annexure no.2 to the writ petition. It has been observed by the Settlement Officer, Consolidation that near gata no.804 there exist dwelling houses of opposite party no.2 and other co-sharers. It has further been observed that there is no illegality in the chaks allocated by the Consolidation Officer. 9. Feeling aggrieved by the said order dated 12.03.1979, passed by the Settlement Officer, Consolidation, a revision under Section 48 of 10. U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act was filed by the opposite party no.2, which has been allowed by means of the impugned order dated 15.03.1980, passed by the Assistant Director of Consolidation, Gonda. 11. The revisional court by passing the impugned order has considered the demand of opposite party no.2 in respect of khasra plot no.804. It has also been considered by the revisional court that till the stage of the Consolidation Officer, opposite party no.2 has been given lesser area on plot no.804. The revisional court found force in the demand of opposite party no.2 and by the impugned order had given half of the area of plot no.804 to opposite party no.2 of the valuation of about two annas. The Assistant Director of Consolidation while passing the order has observed that by making the alteration though chak holder no.201, late Bhikhu will be affected, however, he will not suffer any substantial loss. Accordingly, opposite party no.2 was given a chak wherein he was given larger area of plot no.804 in his chak. 12. The Assistant Director of Consolidation while passing the order has observed that by making the alteration though chak holder no.201, late Bhikhu will be affected, however, he will not suffer any substantial loss. Accordingly, opposite party no.2 was given a chak wherein he was given larger area of plot no.804 in his chak. 12. Submission of learned counsel for petitioners that in respect of gata no.804 since no objection was preferred by opposite party no.2 before the Consolidation Officer, as such he could not have been given the chak on the said gata no.804, is not acceptable for the reason that Form-23 pertaining to chak holder no.66-opposite party no.2, clearly indicates that opposite party no.2 was proposed three chaks, out of which, the first chak proposed to opposite party no.2 was on gata no.711M and 804M, thus, some area of gata no.804M was already proposed to be given in the chak of opposite party no.2 by the Assistant Consolidation Officer, hence, the question of filing objection before the Consolidation Officer by opposite party no.2 in respect of the demand of opposite party no.2 for allotting the area of plot no.804 did not arise. The said submission made by learned counsel for the petitioners, thus, merits rejection. 13. Further submission of learned counsel for the petitioners is that opposite party no.2 has been given more area in his chak on plot no.804 than the area which he originally held. In consolidation operations if all the tenure holders of the village insist that they should be allocated the chaks on their original holding alone and the chaks should be comprised of the same area of the plots originally held by them, then the very purpose of consolidation holdings would get defeated and the consolidation proceedings would become impossible. 14. While undertaking the consolidation operations, the consolidation authorities and the courts are mandated to follow the provision of Section 19 of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act wherein it has been prescribed inter alia that every tenure holder should be allotted a chak on his largest holdings, as far as possible. The said principle though has to be applied while undertaking the consolidation operations, however, in case every tenure holder starts demanding the chak on his original holding alone, the same would render consolidation operations not only difficult but impossible. 15. The said principle though has to be applied while undertaking the consolidation operations, however, in case every tenure holder starts demanding the chak on his original holding alone, the same would render consolidation operations not only difficult but impossible. 15. In the instant case merely because opposite party no.2 has been allotted a chak comprising of plot no.804 wherein more area of the said plot than the area originally held by him, it cannot be a ground of challenge of allotment of chaks made by the courts below. 16. In the overall facts and circumstances of the case, I am not inclined to interfere in this petition, which fails and is accordingly dismissed. 17. There will be no order as to costs.