Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 2610 (ALL)

Ghooray v. D. D. C.

2019-11-20

SALIL KUMAR RAI

body2019
JUDGMENT : Salil Kumar Rai, J. 1. List has been revised. No one has appeared on behalf of the respondents. Heard Shri Tripathi B.G. Bhai, Counsel for the petitioner. The facts of the case are that during the consolidation proceedings in the village, the petitioner was allotted a Chak on Plot No. 116. The provisional consolidation scheme was finalized and the petitioner was delivered possession of the said Chak on 1.7.2003. The petitioner made constructions over the Chak allotted to him. It is relevant to note that in the consolidation scheme, the respondent No. 7 was also allotted a Chak which included part of Plot No. 116. After C.H. Form 41 and C.H. Form 45 were prepared, the respondent No. 7 filed objections under section 20 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as Act, 1953) praying for allotment of a larger area on Plot No. 116. 2. The Consolidation Officer (hereinafter referred to as C.O.) after considering the fact that the petitioner had made constructions on the Chak allotted to him partly allowed the objections vide his order dated 5.6.2008 filed by the respondent No. 7 and increased his area on Plot No. 116 without disturbing the area over which the petitioner was found to be in possession and over which his constructions existed. The respondent No. 7 was not satisfied with the order dated 5.6.2008 and therefore, filed Appeal No. 534 under section 21(2) of the Act, 1953 before the Settlement Officer of Consolidation (hereinafter referred to as S.O.C.) which was dismissed by the S.O.C. vide his order dated 18.7.2008. The other respondents also filed appeal before the S.O.C. and the said appeals were also dismissed by the S.O.C. vide his order dated 18.7.2008. Consequently, the respondents filed Revision Nos. 1759/2284 and 1786/2312 before the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Basti (here in after referred to as D.D.C.) which have been allowed by the D.D.C., Basti vide his order dated 26.3.2009. Through his order dated the 26.3.2009 D.D.C. has altered the allotment of Chaks and changed the position of the Chak of the petitioner affecting the area over which he was found in possession by the CO and had made constructions. Subsequently, on an application filed by respondent No. 7, the D.D.C. passed an order dated 14.11.2011 purporting to correct certain alleged errors in his previous order dated 26.3.2009. Subsequently, on an application filed by respondent No. 7, the D.D.C. passed an order dated 14.11.2011 purporting to correct certain alleged errors in his previous order dated 26.3.2009. The orders dated 26.3.2009 and 14.11.2011 passed by the D.D.C. have been challenged in the present writ petition. 3. It is evident that the order dated 5.6.2008 was passed by the CO after a spot inspection wherein he found the petitioner to be in possession over 160 Kadi on Plot No. 116 adjacent to road and therefore, through his order dated 5.6.2008, the C.O. even though partly allowed the objections filed by respondent No. 7 did not alter the allotments so as to disturb the constructions made by the petitioner over Plot No. 116. It is also apparent from a reading of the order passed by the S.O.C. that share of respondent No. 7 in Plot No. 116 was 037 Hectares and through order dated 5.6.2008, the respondent No. 7 had been allotted .034 Hectares over the said plot. A reading of the order dated 5.6.2008 also shows after the finalisation of the provisional consolidation scheme and delivery of possession of Chaks, a Pakka road was constructed on the Chak road adjacent to Plot No. 116. It is also evident that the objections were filed after C.H. Form 41 and C.H. Form 45 had been prepared. It is also apparent from the records that during the proceedings in the revision filed before the D.D.C., a spot inspection report was submitted by the Chakbandi Karta showing the possession of different persons over Plot No. 116 and the constructions of the petitioner on the said plot. However, in his order dated 26.3.2009, the D.D.C. has allowed the revision and amended the allotment of Chaks without adverting to the reasons given by the CO and the S.O.C. to reject the claim of the respondents and without meeting the reasons given by the subordinate consolidation authorities. 4. A reading of the order dated 26.3.2009 also shows that the D.D.C. had not considered the spot inspection report as prepared and submitted by the Chakbandi Karta and annexed as annexure-8 to the writ petition. It is apparent from the order dated 26.3.2009 that the allotment of Chaks have been amended and the position of the Chak of the petitioner has been altered by the D.D.C. only to satisfy the respondents. It is apparent from the order dated 26.3.2009 that the allotment of Chaks have been amended and the position of the Chak of the petitioner has been altered by the D.D.C. only to satisfy the respondents. No justifiable reasons have been given in the order dated 26.3.2009 to alter the position of the Chak allotted to different tenure holders. It is apparent that the respondent No. 7 was allotted .034 Hectare over Plot No. 116 which was almost equal to his share over the said plot and there was no justifiable reasons for the D.D.C. to interfere in the allotment of Chaks in exercise of his powers under section 48 of the Act, 1953 and to alter the position of Chaks. 5. For the aforesaid reasons, the order dated 26.3.2009 passed by the D.D.C. is contrary to law and is hereby set aside. 6. The order dated 14.11.2011 is merely a consequence of the order dated 26.3.2009 purporting to correct the errors in the schedule appended to the order dated 26.3.2009. However, the order dated 14.11.2011 does not record any errors in the previous order dated 26.3.2009. The order dated 14.11.2011 apart from being merely a consequence of the order dated 26.3.2009 is a non speaking order and is thus liable to be set aside and is hereby quashed. 7. The writ petition is allowed.