Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 2094 (ALL)

Bal Kishore v. Deputy Director of Consolidation

2018-10-01

ANJANI KUMAR MISHRA

body2018
JUDGMENT : ANJANI KUMAR MISHRA, J. 1. A supplementary affidavit has been filed by counsel for the petitioner in pursuance of the order dated 14.09.2018. The same is taken on record. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 3. The instant writ petition arises out of proceedings for allotment of chaks and is directed against the order dated 21.08.2018 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation in revision No.318 filed by respondent. 4. The bone of contention between the parties, who are brothers, is plot No. 1787 having a total area 2.2880 hectare. It is not an issue that the parties, namely, Bal Kishore and Balraj, have 1/4th share each therein. Therefore, both have a share equivalent to 0.5720 hectare in the disputed plots. 5. The revision filed by the respondent No. 4 has been allowed by the order impugned, finding that the respondent in the revision (the petitioner before this Court) had been allotted area of plot No. 1787 in excess of his share therein. Therefore, his allotment of the plot has been reduced by the order impugned and corresponding addition has been made in the chak of the respondent. 6. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that this modification made by the Deputy Director of Consolidation is not justified inasmuch as the petitioner has his private source of irrigation in this plot No. 1787. Therefore, allotment of a greater area of this plot in his chak by the Settlement Officer Consolidation was fully justified and in reducing this area, the Deputy Director of Consolidation has committed manifestly illegality. 7. Counsel for the opposite party No. 4 has supported the impugned order. 8. The Deputy Director of Consolidation has passed the order impugned on the reasoning that the plot No. 1787 being adjacent to the abadi, is valuable land and that the petitioner had been allotted area of this plot in excess of his share. This discrepancy has been remedied by the order impugned. Along with the above a finding has been returned that even after the amendment made by the order impugned, the petitioner was still get an area of plot No. 1787, greater than his actual share therein. 9. In the context of the arguments raised, I have examined the CH Form 23 of both the parties as also correction tables. Along with the above a finding has been returned that even after the amendment made by the order impugned, the petitioner was still get an area of plot No. 1787, greater than his actual share therein. 9. In the context of the arguments raised, I have examined the CH Form 23 of both the parties as also correction tables. The findings that have been returned in the order impugned are borne out by the calculations made by this Court. 10. The contention of counsel for the petitioner is that he was entitled to greater area of plot No.1787 merely because his private source of irrigation is situated in this plot does not impress this Court. The only legal requirement, in accordance with Section 19 of the Consolidation of Holdings Act, is that a tenure holder must, as far as possible, be allotted a chak containing his private source of irrigation. It is not in dispute that this has been done. It is also not the case of the petitioner that his private source of irrigation stands excluded by the modification made by the order impugned. 11. Under the circumstances, therefore, the order impugned cannot be faulted with. 12. After the above had been dictated in the open Court, Shri R.C. Singh, counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the chaks had been proposed at the ACO stage with the consent of the parties and that such an averment is to be found in the memo of the appeal filed by the opposite party. 13. In my considered opinion, such a contention is not liable to be accepted because any consent order before the ACO is to be in writing and signed by atleast two members of the Consolidation Committee. In the absence of any such proof, the contention of either of the parties that the allotment at the ACO stage was with the consent by the parties, cannot be accepted. 14. Thereafter it is submitted that the demand of the opposite party was that the allotment made at the ACO stage be maintained. Even this argument does not improve the petitioners' case because the equities between the parties have been adjusted by the impugned order, and the order, in any case, does substantial justice between them. The modifications made by the impugned order are in consonance with the settled principles regarding allotment of chaks. 15. Even this argument does not improve the petitioners' case because the equities between the parties have been adjusted by the impugned order, and the order, in any case, does substantial justice between them. The modifications made by the impugned order are in consonance with the settled principles regarding allotment of chaks. 15. Accordingly, the writ petition fails and is dismissed.