Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 435 (ALL)

Genda Lal v. D. D. C. , Gonda

2020-02-07

SANGEETA CHANDRA

body2020
JUDGMENT : Sangeeta Chandra, J. 1. Power filed today by Sri. Chandan Srivastava on behalf of respondent No. 7 is taken on record. 2. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for the State respondents and Sri. Chandan Srivastava for respondent No. 7. 3. This petition has been filed, praying for quashing of the order dated 22.8.2019 passed in Case Nos. 414 and 1819 by the Consolidation Officer (New Gonda). 4. It appears that the petitioner Genda Lal had earlier approached this Court in Writ Petition No. 634 (Cons.) of 2019 alleging that he was chak holder No. 442 and was allotted chak on Plot No. 3318 of an area of 55 decimal. The demarcation of the said plot was initially done on 6.12.2016. The petitioner being unhappy filed Writ Petition No. 8380 (MB) of 2017 before a Division Bench of this Court, which was finally disposed of on 20.4.2017, permitting the petitioner to move an application against the respondent No. 2 to the writ petition, who would exercise his power under section 36 of Cr.P.C. and take necessary action in the matter. In compliance of the order dated 20.4.2017, the petitioner approached the Superintendent of Police, Gonda, who passed an order on 11.5.2017 on the representation preferred by the petitioner, observing that on 10.5.2017, measurement and demarcation of Plot Nos. 3318 and 3316 were done by a team comprising of officials of the Revenue Department as also the Consolidation Department in the presence of the Police force. Genda Lai was put in possession of an area of 55 decimal of Plot No. 3318 Minjumla. The petitioner, however, filed Writ Petition No. 634 (Cons.) of 2019, alleging that after demarcation and delivery of possession became final, the respondent No. 6 and his son created some ruckus, which led the authorities to make another demarcation on 15.12.2018. He was aggrieved by the second demarcation, which was done. Learned Standing Counsel on the basis of instructions, stated that the son of respondent No. 6 had threatened to commit suicide and with a view to salvage the situation, the demarcation was done again on 15.12.2018. He was aggrieved by the second demarcation, which was done. Learned Standing Counsel on the basis of instructions, stated that the son of respondent No. 6 had threatened to commit suicide and with a view to salvage the situation, the demarcation was done again on 15.12.2018. This Court thereafter disposed of the petition on 21.2.2019, saying that it is apparent that Plot No. 3318 is a bigger plot of which, only a part has been allocated to the petitioner and there appears to be some dispute between the petitioner and respondent No. 6 regarding demarcation of possession over their respective plots. The Sub-Divisional Officer and the Settlement Officer of Consolidation concerned were directed to demarcate the chak of the petitioner over Plot No. 3318 and also the chak belonging to respondent No. 6 afresh on Plot No. 3316. The said demarcation was to be carried out by a team comprising of the Sub-Divisional Officer and Settlement Officer of Consolidation in the presence of the police personals for protection to the demarcation team and after demarcation, boundary marks were also to be made at the expense of the petitioner and both petitioner and respondent No. 6 shall be put in possession of their respective chaks. 5. After the aforesaid order was passed by this Court, directing the authorities to conduct the demarcation afresh within three weeks from the date of the order dated 21.2.2019, alleging non compliance of such order, the petitioner filed Contempt Petition No. 757 of 2019, where an order was passed by this Court on 1.8.2019, directing the authorities to carry out the demarcation of land in Chak Nos. 3316 and 3318 and also directing the petitioner to make a video of the demarcation conducted by these officers within a period of ten days from the date of the order. An application for granting time was filed by the alleged contemnor in the said contempt petition on 24.8.2019, saying that because of monsoon, it was not possible to carry out the demarcation and, therefore, four months time be granted to them to ensure compliance of the order passed by this Court. The said contempt petition is still pending disposal before this Court. 6. The said contempt petition is still pending disposal before this Court. 6. It has been alleged that by the order dated 22.8.2019, the Consolidation Officer has violated the orders passed by this Court in Writ Petition No. 634 (Cons.) of 2019 and in Contempt Petition No. 757 of 2019. 7. This Court had directed the State respondents to seek instructions. A copy of the instructions sent by the Settlement Officer of Consolidation and Consolidation Officer, have been produced before this Court, which have explained that there was a public rasta in between Plot Nos. 3317 and 3318, which has now been marked in the village map as it had been wrongly shown earlier. The order passed on 22.8.2019 does not in any way, violate the instructions issued by this Court in the writ petition or in the contempt petition. It has also been stated in the said instructions that once Shiv Ratan son of Ram Dhan had filed a recall application on 4.10.2019 against the order dated 22.8.2019 passed by the Consolidation Officer, in case the petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 22.8.2019, saying that it had violated the judgment and order dated 21.2.2019, he may file appropriate application in Contempt Petition No. 757 of 2019, which is still pending before the appropriate Court. 8. The writ petition, as such, is not maintainable and is dismissed.