Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 1172 (ALL)

KOMAL v. D. D. C.

2018-05-09

SALIL KUMAR RAI

body2018
JUDGMENT : Salil Kumar Rai, J. As both the writ petitions have been filed against the same order dated 30.4.1992 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation in Revision No. 2151 and were connected vide order dated 20.10.1992 passed by this Court in Writ Petition No. 27573 of 1992, therefore, both the writ petitions are being decided together. 2. Sri R.C. Singh, Advocate represents the petitioner in Writ Petition No. 17065 of 1992 and respondent no. 6 in Writ Petition No. 27573 of 1992. Notices were issued to respondent no. 4 but no one has appeared on behalf of the aforesaid respondent to contest the case and in view of the office reports dated 15.5.2014, 21.5.2014 and 6.2.2015, service of notice on the aforesaid respondent is deemed to be sufficient under Chapter VIII Rule 12 Exp. II of the High Court Rules. 3. The facts of the case are that Komal i.e. the petitioner in Writ Petition No. 27573 of 1992 is chakdar no. 27, Desh Nath i.e. respondent no. 4 is chakdar no. 309 and Khartak and Chhangur i.e. respondent nos. 5 and 6 are chakdar nos. 34 and 47, respectively. Plot No. 569 (area 762 Kari) was the original holding of Komal in which he had half share, i.e. 381 Kari. Plot No. 511 was the original holding of respondent no. 6 i.e. Chhangur. Plot Nos. 569 is adjacent to road and Plot No. 511 was near abadi. During the consolidation proceedings held in the village under Uttar Pradesh Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as, 'Act, 1953'), petitioner i.e. Komal was allotted a chak on Plot No. 569 consisting of merely 50 Kari on Plot No. 569 till the stage of Consolidation Officer. Aggrieved by the order of the Consolidation Officer, petitioner i.e. Komal filed appeal before the Settlement Officer of Consolidation in which the area of Plot No. 569 in the chak allotted to the petitioner i.e. chak no. 27 was increased to 100 Kari. In the arrangement of chaks as made till the stage of Consolidation Officer and Settlement Officer of Consolidation, respondent no. 6 was also dislocated from his original holding and allotted a chak on Plot No. 569. Respondent no. 27 was increased to 100 Kari. In the arrangement of chaks as made till the stage of Consolidation Officer and Settlement Officer of Consolidation, respondent no. 6 was also dislocated from his original holding and allotted a chak on Plot No. 569. Respondent no. 6 was not aggrieved by the arrangement of chaks as made till the stage of Settlement Officer of Consolidation as even though he was dislocated from his original holding i.e., Plot No. 511 which was adjacent to abadi, he was allotted a chak on Plot No. 569 which was adjacent to road. However, the petitioner, aggrieved by the arrangement of chaks as finalized till the stage of Settlement Officer of Consolidation whereby he was allotted merely 100 Kari in Plot No. 569, filed Revision No. 2151 before the Deputy Director of Consolidation. It is pertinent to state that till the stage of Settlement Officer of Consolidation, respondent nos. 4 and 5 were also allotted chak on Plot No. 569 even though it was not their original holding. The grievance of the petitioner was that as his original holding was adjacent to road, therefore, he should be allotted a chak according to his share in Plot No. 569, which was 381 Kari. The Deputy Director of Consolidation after considering the fact that Plot No. 569 was adjacent to the road and was the original holding of the petitioner in which the share of the petitioner was 381 Kari, modified the arrangement of chak as finalized till the stage of Settlement Officer of Consolidation and increased the area of Plot No. 569 in chak no. 27 to 194 Kari but still included some portion of the said plot in the chak allotted to respondent no. 4. Consequently, the chak allotted to respondent no. 6 which was adjacent to the road till the stage of Settlement Officer of Consolidation was shifted depriving him of a chak adjacent to road even though the original holding of respondent no. 6 i.e. Plot No. 511 was valuable as it was adjacent to abadi. 4. Consequently, the chak allotted to respondent no. 6 which was adjacent to the road till the stage of Settlement Officer of Consolidation was shifted depriving him of a chak adjacent to road even though the original holding of respondent no. 6 i.e. Plot No. 511 was valuable as it was adjacent to abadi. Aggrieved by the order dated 30.4.1992 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Komal has filed Writ Petition No. 27573 of 1992 so far as it fails to allot chak to the petitioner according to his share in Plot No. 569, and Chhangur has filed Writ Petition No. 17065 of 1992 praying that the said order passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation be set-aside and he may be allotted chak adjacent to road. 4. It is evident from the records annexed with the writ petitions which have not been controverted by either of the parties and from the contents of the order dated 30.4.1992 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation that Plot No. 569 was the original holding of Komal i.e. the petitioner in Writ Petition No. 27573 of 1992 and was also adjacent to road. It is also evident that Plot No. 511 was the original holding of respondent no. 6 i.e. Chhangur (petitioner in Writ Petition No. 17065 of 1992) and the aforesaid plot was also adjacent to village abadi. In view of the judgments of this Court referred in Jaswant Singh vs. D.D.C., Banda & Others, 2006 101 RevDec 207, Awadhesh Kumar & Ors. vs Director of Consolidation & Ors., (2014) 122 RevDec 47, Smt. Chandra Jota & Ors. vs Deputy Director of Consolidation & Ors., (2007) 103 RevDec 556 and Sanjay & Another vs Director of Consolidation & Ors.,2013 121 RevDec 561, plots of the tenure holders adjacent to the road are not to be disturbed during the consolidation proceedings and have to be allotted to them. A perusal of the order dated 30.4.1992 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation shows that in his aforesaid order, even though the Deputy Director of Consolidation has taken note of the fact that Plot No. 569 was adjacent to the road but has failed to consider that the chak allotted to petitioner on the said plot does not adequately include the area of Plot No. 569 and has also included the said plot in the chak allotted to respondent no. 4 even though it was not the original holding of respondent no. 4. Similarly, in his aforesaid order, the Deputy Director of Consolidation has also failed to consider the prejudice caused to respondent no. 6 i.e. Chhangur (petitioner in Writ Petition No. 17065 of 1992) who initially was dislocated from his original holding on Plot No. 511 which was adjacent to abadi by allotting a chak on Plot No. 569 which was adjacent to road. However, as a consequence of the impugned order, respondent no. 6 has been deprived of a chak adjacent to road. In case the chak allotted to respondent no. 6 on Plot No. 569 was to be disturbed, the Deputy Director of Consolidation was legally bound to consider the interest of respondent no. 6 keeping in mind that his original holding on Plot No. 511 was near abadi. The impugned order passed by Deputy Director of Consolidation has been passed mechanically and without any application of mind. In the circumstances, the order dated 30.4.1992 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation is not legally sustainable and is hereby set-aside. The matter is remanded back to the Deputy Director of Consolidation to pass fresh orders after considering the principle of law as laid down in the judgments of this Court referred before. The Deputy Director of Consolidation shall pass fresh orders within a period of six months from the date a certified copy of the order is produced before him by either of the parties and after issuing notices to the affected parties. 5. The parties shall maintain status-quo till a fresh order is passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation. 6. With the aforesaid directions, the writ petition is disposed of.