Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 2185 (ALL)

Rajwati v. Deputy Director of Consolidation

2018-10-11

ANJANI KUMAR MISHRA

body2018
JUDGMENT : ANJANI KUMAR MISHRA, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners. 2. The instant writ petition is directed against the order dated 31.08.2018 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Badaun in a Revision filed by the respondent no.4. 3. The contention of counsel for the petitioner is that he was satisfied with the allotment made in his favour right from the Assistant Consolidation Officer stage and that this allotment had also become final. 4. However, a revision was filed by the respondent no.4 but in the memo of revision, no grievance was raised against the allotment made in favour of the petitioner. Yet, the Deputy Director of Consolidation, has modified the chak of the petitioners. 5. The second contention raised is that the case of the petitioner has not at all been considered by the Deputy Director of Consolidation while passing the impugned order, which vitiates it. The writ petition is therefore, liable to be entertained. 6. I have considered the submissions made counsel for the petitioners and perused the record. 7. It is no doubt true that no specific grievance had been raised by the opposite party no.4 against the allotment made in favour of the petitioner in his revision but it is also true that initially, the opposite party no.4 had been proposed a single chak on original plot no.315. However, the Consolidation Officer allotted them a second chak on plot no.390. 8. At the appellate stage, yet another chak had been allotted to her raising the number of chaks to 3. Despite her being a small tenure holder. Therefore, at the revisional stage, the demand was that the first and third chaks be abolished and a single chak being allotted on plot no.319, her original holding. 9. The Deputy Director of Consolidation has also observed that at the time of hearing, the opposite party no.4 had consented to allotment of four chaks in case, other area of plot no.319 was being included in her chak. 10. However, this prayer being contrary to the provisions of the Act itself, which provides that an allotment of more than three chaks to a tenure holder can be made only for cogent reasons to be recorded in writing. 10. However, this prayer being contrary to the provisions of the Act itself, which provides that an allotment of more than three chaks to a tenure holder can be made only for cogent reasons to be recorded in writing. In case, such an allotment is being made either by the Consolidation Officer or the Settlement Officer of Consolidation prior permission of the Deputy Director of Consolidation is to be obtained for such an allotment. 11. However, no question of prior permission of the Deputy Director of Consolidation in case at hand arose, as this permission would have been granted by the Deputy Director of Consolidation, himself. He was authority deciding the revision. However, the very fact that the Deputy Director of Consolidation has not granted the prayer for allotment of four chaks to the opposite party no.4, tantamounts to his refusal to grant such permission. 12. In the facts and circumstances of the case and since, the Deputy Director of Consolidation came to the conclusion that the allotment of the chak made in favour of the opposite party no.4, a small tenure holder was not justified, the modifications, as contained in the impugned orders have been directed primarily on the ground that the petitioners had been allotted plot no.315/3, which was a wholly udan chak. Accordingly, the revision of the opposite party has been allowed and the petitioners chak has been shifted. 13. The reason given for allowing the revision, namely, that the petitioner had been allotted an udan chak, is, in my considered opinion, adequate consideration of the case of the petitioners, also. Since his allotment of plot no.315/3 was an udan chak, nothing further was required to be considered. The petitioner cannot as a matter of right claim of allotment of plot no.315/3. 14. Moreover, the chak of the petitioner has been shifted only slightly from plot no.315/2, 315/3 to 315/6. 15. Despite, a pointed query by the Court, no injury being suffered by the petitioners on account of modifications made by the impugned order could be pointed out except that after the allotment had been made, the land had been further developed by the petitioner and therefore, the impugned order will cause prejudice. 16. However, this Court does not find any material on record in support of his contention and therefore, the impugned order, which is otherwise, an order found to be justified, cannot be interfered with. 16. However, this Court does not find any material on record in support of his contention and therefore, the impugned order, which is otherwise, an order found to be justified, cannot be interfered with. 17. The writ petition is therefore, without substance and is dismissed.