Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 166 (ALL)

Harun v. State of U. P.

2020-01-14

SALIL KUMAR RAI

body2020
JUDGMENT : Salil Kumar Rai, J. 1. Heard the Counsel for the petitioner. 2. The present writ petition has been filed against the order dated 16.11.2010 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Muzaffar Nagar in Reference Nos. 15 and 20 registered under section 48(3) of the Uttar Pradesh Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as, 'Act, 1953') as well as against the order dated 28.2.2011 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation rejecting Revision No. 703 filed by the petitioner under section 48(1) of the Act, 1953. 3. Through the order dated 16.11.2010, the Deputy Director of Consolidation has chucked out and rearranged the allotment of chaks also affecting Chak No. 768-Sa(I) allotted to the petitioner. 4. It was argued by the Counsel for the petitioner that the order dated 16.11.2010 reduces by more than 50%, the original holding of the petitioner. 5. The contention of the petitioner is not acceptable. It is apparent from a reading of the order dated 16.11.2010 that through the aforesaid order, the Deputy Director of Consolidation has allowed the restoration application filed by the petitioner and has retained 1-2-12 in Plot No. 4327/4 with the petitioner. Further, a perusal of the schedule appended to the order dated 16.11.2010 would show that previously the petitioner was allotted 3-15-4 and after the order dated 16.11.2010, the petitioner retains 2-16-16. The said 2-16-16 includes 1-2-12 in Plot No. 4327/4 which was chucked out and included in C.H. Form-18. In addition to the area in Plot No. 4327/4 which has been chucked out, the petitioner has been allotted a chak of 1-14-4. The variation between 3-15-4 and 2-16-6, i.e., the area previously allotted to the petitioner and the total area retained by the petitioner is not more than 25%. The aforesaid area allotted to the petitioner is in addition to Chak No. 943-Sa allotted to the petitioner. It is also apparent from the records that the restoration application filed by the petitioner has been partly rejected and, in case, the demand of the petitioner had been full accepted, the same would have adversely affected the Chak Nos. 268-A and 3497. 6. It is also apparent from the records that the restoration application filed by the petitioner has been partly rejected and, in case, the demand of the petitioner had been full accepted, the same would have adversely affected the Chak Nos. 268-A and 3497. 6. The order dated 28.2.2011 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation has been challenged on the ground that the allotments of chak as made till the filing of the revision were contrary to section 19 of the Act, 1953 because the petitioner had been allotted three chaks. Section 19 of the Act, 1953 provides that a tenure holder can be allotted three chaks and the prohibition is on allotting more than three chaks without the approval in writing of the Deputy Director of Consolidation. Further, section 19(1)(e) proviso II provides that no consolidation would be invalid merely for the reason that a tenure holder had been allotted more than three chaks. For the aforesaid reason, the argument of the Counsel for the petitioner challenging the order dated 28.2.2011 can also not be accepted. 7. A reading of the orders dated 16.11.2010 and 28.2.2011 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation shows that the chaks have been re-arranged as the petitioner and certain other tenure holders had been allotted chaks on lands reserved for public utility, especially as flaying sites. Apparently, the allotment of chaks were illegal in as much as the purpose of the plots reserved for public purposes under the consolidation scheme cannot be changed. Plot No. 4327/4 on which the petitioner claims to be his abadi has been retained by him by order dated 16.11.2010 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation. 8. It was argued by the Counsel for the petitioner that application titled as Revision No. 703 of 2010 was actually for recall of the order dated 16.11.2010 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation by which the petitioner has been allotted three chaks. A perusal of the memorandum of revision referred as application by the Counsel for the petitioner shows that in the aforesaid memorandum, the petitioner had categorically pleaded that his revision be allowed and the order passed by the Court below, i.e., the Appellate Court be set-aside. It is apparent that the application was filed against the order of the Appellate Court and the same was filed under section 48(1) of the Act, 1953. It is apparent that the application was filed against the order of the Appellate Court and the same was filed under section 48(1) of the Act, 1953. It may also be noticed that the order dated 28.2.2011 dismissing the revision filed by the petitioner has been passed on the ground that the revision was highly belated in as much as the same had been filed against the order dated 24.12.2004 passed by the Appellate Court and further the chaks had already been settled vide order dated 16.11.2010 and, therefore, no further alterations could be made. 9. For all the aforesaid reasons, there is no illegality in the orders dated 16.11.2010 and 28.2.2011 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation. The writ petition lacks merit and is, hereby, dismissed. Interim order, if any, stands vacated.