Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 1417 (ALL)

Roopchand v. Deputy Director of Consolidation

2019-05-23

RAJIV JOSHI

body2019
JUDGMENT : Rajiv Joshi, J. 1. Heard Sri Sanjay Kumar Pundir, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri Ruduvant Pratap Singh, learned Counsel for the respondent No. 3. 2. Present writ petition has been filed challenging the order dated 1.2.2019 passed by Deputy Director of Consolidation, Saharanpur, whereby the revision filed by the petitioner bearing Revision No. 365/20185309600000023 under section 48 (1) of U.P.C.H. Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as Act) has been dismissed affirming the order passed by Settlement Officer of Consolidation dated 15.5.2007. 3. It reflects from the record that three chaks were proposed to the petitioner by the Assistant Consolidation Officer. Against the said proposal, contesting respondents filed an objection. The petitioner was satisfied with the proposal made by Assistant Consolidation Officer and did not file any objection. It appears that said objection filed by the contesting respondents by which chak of the petitioner was disturbed, whereby two chaks were carved out to the petitioner over his original holding i.e. plot No. 169 and 381 vide order passed by Consolidation Officer. 4. Being aggrieved by the order passed by the Consolidation Officer, petitioner filed an appeal which was allowed vide order dated 27.7.2016. Against that order, a restoration filed by some of the respondents, which was allowed vide order dated 15.5.2017 and the appeal was directed to be decided after restoring the same. Thereafter, Appellate Authority vide order dated 15.5.2017 dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner. Against that order, revision was filed, which too was dismissed. 5. Contention of learned Counsel for the petitioner is that he may be allotted a chak over plot No. 369, which is the original holding of the petitioner including his boring over the same. 6. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the respondent No. 2 submits that land of gata No. 369 is the joint holding of the petitioner and other co-sharers in which petitioner having only half share. 7. I have considered the submissions as raised by learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record. 8. The area of plot No. 369 is 1-18-0, out of which petitioner was allotted a chak over the same to the extent of 1-2-2, which includes his irrigation facility. 7. I have considered the submissions as raised by learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record. 8. The area of plot No. 369 is 1-18-0, out of which petitioner was allotted a chak over the same to the extent of 1-2-2, which includes his irrigation facility. The Revisional Court after considering each and every aspect of the matter, has specifically recorded a finding in this regard that petitioner is holding chak over his original holding i.e. plot No. 369 over which his irrigation facilities are also situates and in case, the entire area of plot No. 369 is allotted to the petitioner, then several other chak holders will be deprived of their original holding and will get udan chak. 9. Since, the petitioner is having a chak over his original holding, no ground for interference under Article 226 of the Constitution is made out. Substantial justice has been done between the parties as they have been allotted chaks over their original holdings. 10. I do not find any illegality or infirmity in the orders impugned herein. 11. Writ petition lacks merit and is, accordingly, dismissed.