Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 45 (ALL)

Parmatama v. D. D. C.

2018-01-05

SALIL KUMAR RAI

body2018
JUDGMENT & ORDER : Salil Kumar Rai, J. Heard Sri S. N. Tripathi, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned standing counsel who represents the respondent No. 1. 2. The present writ petition has been filed praying for a writ of certiorari quashing the order dated 30.03.2001 passed by respondent No. 1, i.e., Deputy Director of Consolidation, Gorakhpur in Revision No. 962 (Haridwar Vs. Parmatama and others). 3. The facts of the case as transpires from the pleadings in the writ petition as well as in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondent Nos. 3, 4 and 5 and from the documents attached with the writ petition and the counter affidavit are that during the consolidation operations held under the Uttar Pradesh Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') the petitioner was allotted two chaks by the concerned Consolidation Officer. One chak consisted of plot Nos. 102/1, 102/2, 102/3 and the other chak consisted of plot No. 4/1, 5M and 10/4M. Both the chaks allotted to the petitioner consisted of his original holdings. Plot No. 10/4 was also the original holding of the petitioner and the total area of plot No. 10/4 was 1. 466 hec. However, petitioner was allotted only 572 Are in plot No. 10/4. The aforesaid facts are evident from CH Form 23 annexed as Annexure No. 1 to the writ petition. The respondent No. 3 was also a co-owner of plot No. 10/4 and had 1/8 share in the same. During the consolidation operations, a dispute arose between the petitioner and respondent No. 3 regarding the area to be allotted to each of them on plot No. 10/4. Respondent No. 3 was allotted three chaks and one of the said chak was 'udan chak' consisting of plot Nos. 90M, 91M and 97/1. Respondent No. 3 was allotted 033 Are in plot No. 10/4 in a chak consisting of plot Nos. 2M, 3M and 10/4M. Respondent No. 3 filed an appeal before the Settlement Officer of Consolidation praying for modification of chaks allotted to him for adding the area of udan chak allotted to him in plot No. 10/4 but the said appeal was dismissed vide order dated 24. 02. 1999 passed by Assistant Settlement officer of Consolidation, District Gorakhpur. Against the aforesaid order the respondent No. 3 filed Revision No. 962 before respondent No. 1. 02. 1999 passed by Assistant Settlement officer of Consolidation, District Gorakhpur. Against the aforesaid order the respondent No. 3 filed Revision No. 962 before respondent No. 1. The petitioner had also filed an appeal before the Settlement Officer of Consolidation praying that the area allotted to him in plot No. 10/4 be increased which was also dismissed by the Settlement Officer of Consolidation vide his order date 24. 02. 1999. Against the order dated 24. 02. 1999 the petitioner filed a revision before respondent No. 1 which was numbered as Revision No. 1017 and was dismissed by the respondent No. 1 vide his judgment and order dated 30.03.2001. The memorandum of Revision has not been annexed with the writ petition but from a perusal of the judgment dated 30.03.2001 passed by respondent No. 1 in Revision No. 1017 it appears that the said revision was filed by the petitioner on the ground that chak allotted to the petitioner which includes plot No. 10/4 has been carved in a manner that it deprives the petitioner of his source of irrigation and therefore, area of plot No. 10/4 may be increased in his chak so as to include his source of irrigation. The respondent No. 1 while dismissing the aforesaid revision No. 1017 has recorded that the area of plot No. 10/4 included in the chak allotted to the petitioner has been carved so as to include his source of irrigation and the petitioner has been allotted chak on his original holdings. On the same date, i.e., 30.03.2001 but through a separate order, the respondent No. 1 allowed Revision No. 962 instituted by respondent No. 3 and modified the chaks allotted to respondent No. 3 by increasing the area of plot No. 10/4 by 237 Are in the chak allotted to him (in place of udan chak earlier allotted to him) and an equal area was reduced from the area in plot No. 10/4 allotted to the petitioner. The petitioner was allotted 237 Are in chak consisting of plot Nos. 90, 91, 97/1. The said order has been challenged by the petitioner in the present writ petition. 4. The petitioner was allotted 237 Are in chak consisting of plot Nos. 90, 91, 97/1. The said order has been challenged by the petitioner in the present writ petition. 4. It has not been pleaded in the writ petition or argued by the counsel that due to the alterations made by respondent No. 1 through his impugned order, the petitioner has been deprived of his private source of irrigation and a perusal of CH Form 23 and the impugned order shows that the petitioner still retains chaks on his original holdings. The counsel for the petitioner has not been able to show that the impugned order passed by respondent No. 2 violates or is contrary to any principles prescribed in Section 19 (1) (e) (f) or (g) of the Act. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the order dated 31. 03. 2001 passed in Revision No. 962 is illegal and without jurisdiction as the respondent No. 1 had already dismissed Revision No. 1017 by order of the same date holding that no alteration can be made in plot No. 10. The learned counsel for the petitioner has also argued that for the said reason the issue regarding alteration in plot No. 10 was barred by principles of res judicata and therefore, the order dated 30.03.2001 passed by respondent No. 1 is liable to be set aside. I am unable to agree with the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner. It has been stated in pragraph No. 6 of the writ petition that revision filed by the petitioner and the revision filed by respondent No. 3, i.e., Revision Nos. 1017 and 962 were heard together. As both cases were heard together by respondent No. 1, no illegality has been committed by respondent No. 1 by merely deciding both cases through separate orders and no jurisdictional error has been committed by respondent No. 1 while allowing Revision No. 962. The principle of res judicata does not prohibit passing separate and different orders in two different cases heard together. Further, while dismissing Revision No. 1017 filed by the petitioner, the respondent No. 1 has merely held that the petitioner cannot be allotted more area that what has been allotted to him in the said plot and has not held that the area of plot No. 10 cannot be altered for the purposes of equitable arrangements of chak. Further, while dismissing Revision No. 1017 filed by the petitioner, the respondent No. 1 has merely held that the petitioner cannot be allotted more area that what has been allotted to him in the said plot and has not held that the area of plot No. 10 cannot be altered for the purposes of equitable arrangements of chak. As recorded earlier, it has not been argued by the petitioner or stated in the writ petition that the aforesaid alteration deprives the petitioner of his private source of irrigation. The petitioner still retains chak on his original holdings. 6. For the aforesaid reason, I find no illegality in the order dated 30.03.2001 passed by respondent No. 1 in Revision No. 962. 7. The writ petition lacks merits and is accordingly dismissed. 8. Interim order granted earlier, stands vacated.