Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 143 (ALL)

Ramdhari v. D. D. C.

2018-01-12

SALIL KUMAR RAI

body2018
JUDGMENT & ORDER : Salil Kumar Rai, J. The case has been called out in the revised list. Shri Arun Kumar representing petitioners and Standing Counsel representing respondent No. 1 are present. None appeared on behalf of respondent No. 2. 2. The present writ petition has been filed praying for a writ of certiorari quashing the order dated 17.4.2001 passed by respondent No. 1-Deputy Director of Consolidation, Gorakhpur (hereinafter referred to as, 'D.D.C.'). 3. A perusal of the order-sheet shows that Shri K.K.M. Tripathi, had put in appearance on behalf of respondent No. 2 and vide order dated 21.5.2001 passed by this Court time was granted to file counter affidavit and by the same order operation of the impugned order dated 17.4.2001 passed by respondent No. 1 was stayed by this Court. However, neither any counter affidavit nor stay vacation application have been filed on behalf of respondent No. 2 till date. 4. The facts of the case are that during the consolidation proceedings conducted in the village under Uttar Pradesh Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as, 'Act, 1953'), petitioners were proposed two Chaks with total area being less than 1 hectare to each petitioner. One Chak consisted of Plot Nos. 807 and 814 while the other Chak consisted of Plot Nos. 985 and 987. The aforesaid proposal was confirmed by Consolidation Officer and petitioners were satisfied with the same. Respondent No. 2 was allotted three Chaks and one of the said Chaks consisted of Plot Nos. 890 and 892. Respondent No. 2 filed an appeal before Settlement Officer of Consolidation (hereinafter referred to as, 'S.O.C. ') praying that he may be allotted Chak in front of his house. The aforesaid appeal was dismissed by S.O.C. vide his order dated 30.11.1998 on the ground that a Chak was already allotted to respondent No. 2 adjacent to his house. Against the aforesaid order dated 30.11.1998 passed by S.O.C., respondent No. 2 filed a Revision No. 856 under Section 48 of the Act, 1953 before respondent No. 1. Respondent No. 1 vide his impugned order dated 17.4.2001 modified the Chaks allotted to petitioners and respondent No. 2. Through his aforesaid order, respondent No. 1 altered the arrangement of Chaks by allotting Chak consisting of Plot Nos. 807 and 814 to respondent No. 2 and in its place allotted Chak consisting of Plot Nos. 890 and 892 to petitioners. Respondent No. 1 vide his impugned order dated 17.4.2001 modified the Chaks allotted to petitioners and respondent No. 2. Through his aforesaid order, respondent No. 1 altered the arrangement of Chaks by allotting Chak consisting of Plot Nos. 807 and 814 to respondent No. 2 and in its place allotted Chak consisting of Plot Nos. 890 and 892 to petitioners. The reasons given in the aforesaid order was that through the aforesaid modifications respondent No. 2 would get Chak which contains his private source of irrigation. 5. Contention of petitioners as stated in the writ petition is that alteration of Chak by respondent No. 1 through his order dated 17.4.2001 was contrary to the principles prescribed in Section 19 of the Act, 1953, and therefore, is liable to be set aside. The argument is that prayer by respondent No. 2 before S.O.C. was merely to allot Chak in front of his house, which was dismissed on the ground that the Chak allotted to respondent No. 2 was adjacent to his house. In paragraph No. 21 of the writ petition, petitioners have stated that they had their private source of irrigation on Plot No. 814 and by impugned order dated 17.4.2001 passed by respondent No. 1, petitioners have been deprived of their private source of irrigation. No counter affidavit has been filed by respondent No. 2 disputing the aforesaid facts stated by petitioners. 6. I have perused the records annexed with the writ petition. From records annexed with the writ petition, it is evident that Plot No. 814 was the original holding of petitioners. The respondent No. 2 has not filed any counter affidavit disputing the averment made in the writ petition. It is also evident that petitioners had their private source of irrigation on Plot No. 814. Further, a perusal of C. H. Form No. 23 relating to respondent No. 2 shows that respondent No. 2 had already been allotted a Chak on original holdings consisting of Plot No. 813. The aforesaid Chak also consisted of Pot No. 814, but the said fact is not relevant for a decision of the present writ petition. In his impugned order dated 17.4.2001, respondent No. 1 has not considered the case of the petitioners and the effect of modification of the Chaks as made by him and whether the said modification would deprive the petitioners of their private source of irrigation. In his impugned order dated 17.4.2001, respondent No. 1 has not considered the case of the petitioners and the effect of modification of the Chaks as made by him and whether the said modification would deprive the petitioners of their private source of irrigation. Respondent No. 1 has also not considered that through his aforesaid order, petitioners would be deprived of their original holdings and whether the same was necessary for equitable arrangement of Chaks especially when the petitioners are small tenure holders. 7. Further, a perusal of order dated 30.11.1998 passed by S.O.C., shows that the only demand of respondent No. 2 was that he may be allotted a Chak in front of his house and the said demand was rejected by S.O.C. on the ground that Chak allotted to respondent No. 2 was already adjacent to his house. Revision No. 856 was filed against the said order passed by S.O.C., and therefore, the Revision was restricted only to the question whether the grievance of respondent No. 2 as made before the S.O.C. was genuine and liable to be met by setting aside the order of S.O.C. Respondent No. 1 exceeded its jurisdiction under Section 48 of the Act, 1953 by allowing Revision No. 856 without setting aside the order dated 30.11.1998 passed by S.O.C. and on a new grievance set up by respondent No. 2 before the Revisional Authority. 8. For the aforesaid reasons, order dated 17.4.2001 passed by respondent No. 1 is contrary to law and is liable to be quashed. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed and the order dated 17.4.2001 passed by respondent No. 1-Deputy Director of Consolidation, Gorakhpur is hereby set aside.