Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2021 DIGILAW 672 (ALL)

Rajaram v. Deputy Director Of Consolidation

2021-07-14

DINESH PATHAK

body2021
JUDGMENT : Dinesh Pathak, J. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for respondent no.1, 2 and Sri Mannu Chowdhary learned counsel for the respondent no.5 i.e. Gaon Sabha. 2. In view of the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case and the order proposed to be passed hereunder, this Court is proceeding to finally decide this matter at the admission stage, without putting notice to respondents. 3. Instant petition has been preferred challenging the impugned order dated 18.12.2020 (Annexure-5) passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation (respondent no.1) in Revision No.33 preferred by petitioner and also order dated 15.05.2019 (Annexuure No.3) passed by the Settlement Officer of Consolidation (respondent no.2) in Appeal No.26 preferred by Moti Lal (respondent no.3). 4. Facts give rise to this petition is that in provisional consolidation scheme petitioner has been preferred chak no.149 at two places. First chak was proposed on two plots i.e. plot no.253/2 min area 0.497 hectare and plot no.258/2 min area 0.332 hectare. Second chak was proposed over plot no.345 etc., total seven plots. As per case of the petitioner he was fully satisfied with the proposed chak and was consented having the same without any objection. 5. On the other had contesting respondent no.3, Moti Lal has been proposed chak no.114 at two places. His first chak was proposed over plot no.380/59 etc. and second chak was proposed over plot nos.342 and 380/40 min. 6. Feeling aggrieved respondent no.3 has filed objection under Section 20(1) of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (in brevity UPCH Act), qua placement of second chak and made prayer for shifting it over plot no.404 and 406, which are his original holdings. Objection as mentioned above filed by respondent no.3 was allowed by Consolidation Officer vide its order dated 12.03.2019 (A-2), proposing him chak over plot no.404 min and 406 min in place of plot nos.380/62 and 380/59 from the first chak. 7. Being not satisfy, respondent no.3 has preferred appeal beseeching allotment of chak over plot nos.246/1 area 0.055 hectare and 246/2 area 0.684 hectare, including the area of embankment (Bandhi), which are his original holding, in place of his second chak which has been carved out over plot no.342/0.381 min and 380/40 min. 8. 7. Being not satisfy, respondent no.3 has preferred appeal beseeching allotment of chak over plot nos.246/1 area 0.055 hectare and 246/2 area 0.684 hectare, including the area of embankment (Bandhi), which are his original holding, in place of his second chak which has been carved out over plot no.342/0.381 min and 380/40 min. 8. Settlement Officer of Consolidation has allowed the appeal filed by respondent no.3, vide order dated 15.05.2019 (Annexure no.3), shifting his second chak over plot no.346 etc, including the area of embankment which belongs to him. In this view of the matter plot no.342 area 0.381 hectare and plot no.380/4 area 0.152 hectare has been taken out from the chak of the respondent no.3 and in its place, he has been proposed chak over plot no.346/1 area 0.045 hectare, plot no.346/2 area 0.163 hect. and plot no.347 area 0.410 hectare. 9. It appears that due to the aforesaid adjustment made by the Settlement Officer of Consolidation in the chak of respondent no.3, some prejudice caused to the petitioner who has, being aggrieved, filed revision before Deputy Director of Consolidation, registered as revision no.33(Raja Ram Vs. Moti Lal) (Annexure no.4.). Revision filed by the petitioner was clubbed alongwith the other revisions filed on behalf of the co-villagers which have been decided vide common judgement and order dated 18.12.2020 (Annexure no.5) passed by the Deputy Directory of Consolidation, which is under challenged before this Hon'ble Court. 10. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that Settlement officer of Consolidation has illegally interfered in the second chak of the petitioner, which consists of his original holdings i.e. plot no.346/1m 346/2 and 347 and has illegally carved out third chak over plot nos.377 and 378. Deputy Director of Consolidation has illegally affirmed the order passed by the Settlement Officer of Consolidation. It is further submitted that while dismissing the revision Deputy Directory of Consolidation has illegally made some minor alteration in the chak of petitioner with respect to plot no.346/2, 380/26, 377 and 378. 11. I do not find any substance in the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner challenging the creation of third chek and supervisory power of Deputy Directory of Consolidation making minor alteration in the chak of the chak holders. 11. I do not find any substance in the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner challenging the creation of third chek and supervisory power of Deputy Directory of Consolidation making minor alteration in the chak of the chak holders. Learned counsel for the petitioner has failed to point out any irregularity or perversity in the order passed by the consolidation court or in proceedings and has failed to point out any violation of the provisions as enunciated under Section 19 of UPCH Act, as well. 12. Consolidation Courts are empowered under section 19 (1)(e) of UPCH Act for carving out third chak to the tenure holder and in case it is more than that approval in writing of Deputy Directory of Consolidation is required. The relevant provision of Section 19(1)(e) of UPCH Act is reproduced below:- "[19. Conditions to be fulfilled by a Consolidation Scheme. - (1) A Consolidation Scheme shall fulfill the following conditions, namely, - "(e) every tenure-holder is, as far as possible, allotted a compact area at the place where he holds the largest part of his holding: provided that no tenure-holder may be allotted more chaks, than three except with the approval in writing of the Deputy Director of Consolidation: Provided further that no consolidation made shall be invalid for the reason merely that the number of chaks allotted to a tenure-holder exceeds three;" 13. Proviso 1 and 2 to Section 19(1)(e) of UPCH Act. explicitly denotes that there is no impediment in allotting the third chak to any tenure holder; Even more than three chaks can also be permitted that too with the prior approval in writing of Deputy Directory of Consolidation. Meaning thereby no interference is warranted merely the reason that three or more than three chaks have been allotted to tenure holder, unless it is substantiated by the aggrieved tenure holder that due to allotment of the said chak, serious injury will caused to him, applying the provision, as discussed above. 14. This Court finds no illegality in allotment of third chak in favour of the petitioner, which is duly permissible under the law. Even otherwise, nothing has been demonstrated by the counsel for the petitioner as to what prejudice will cause to him due to carvation of third chak by the Settlement Officer of Consolidation. 14. This Court finds no illegality in allotment of third chak in favour of the petitioner, which is duly permissible under the law. Even otherwise, nothing has been demonstrated by the counsel for the petitioner as to what prejudice will cause to him due to carvation of third chak by the Settlement Officer of Consolidation. In dismissing the revision filed by petitioner Deputy Director of Consolidation has given a categorical finding that first chak allotted to the petitioner was carved out in his original holding i.e. plot no.253 min etc. which consists of measuring area 0.829 hectare and the second chak was also carved out in original holding of the petitioner i.e. plot nos.345 and 380/27 min etc. measuring area 2.235 hectare, which includes original measuring area 1.016 hectare. So far his third chak is concerned it has been carved out over plot no.378 etc. measuring area 0.726 hectare, which includes original holding of the petitioner measuring area 0.378 hectare. In this view of the matter all the three chaks of the petitioner are consists of maximum area of the original holding belongs to him. 15. Demand of the petitioner qua shifting of chak from plot no.378 etc to plot no.346/1 and 346/2 etc has rightly been negatived by the D.D.C. with an observation that petitioner has allotted maximum area of his original holding in his chak. A very minor alteration has been made by D.D.C. in the third chak of petitioner over plot no.378 proposing change over plot no.346/2, 380/27 etc. It is observed by learned D.D.C. that due to aforesaid alteration the chak proposed over plot no.346/2 etc became measuring area 1.690 hectare which includes original holding of the petitioner measuring area 1.045 hectare. It is observed that said proposed area in his chak is more accommodating the area from his original holding i.e. more than the measuring area 1.016 hectare which has earlier been allotted to him from his original holding. Order passed by the D.D.C explicitly assigned the reasons in dismissing the revision filed by the petitioner who has been found, prima-facie, no grievance due to allotment of 3rd chak made by S.O.C. or the minor alteration in his chak made by the D.D.C. 16. Order passed by the D.D.C explicitly assigned the reasons in dismissing the revision filed by the petitioner who has been found, prima-facie, no grievance due to allotment of 3rd chak made by S.O.C. or the minor alteration in his chak made by the D.D.C. 16. In his supervisory jurisdiction under Section 48 of the UPCH Act, revisional court is empowered to satisfy himself as to the regularity of proceeding, or as to the correctness, legality or propriety of any order passed by any subordinate authority. Explanation 3 appended to Section 48 of the Act, which was introduced by U.P. Act no.3 of 2002 (w.e.f. 10.11.1980), enunciate the vast power of revisional court to examine the correctness, illegality or propriety of any order. Power of the revisional court under section 48 of the UPCH Act not only authorizes him to examine any finding recorded by any subordinate court with respect to the fact or law but also empowered him to re-appreciate any oral or documentary evidence. Examining the finding given by D.D.C. in the light of the jurisdiction as enunciated u/s 48 of the Act, this Court do not find any illegality or perversity in the order passed by respondent no.1, who has made minor alteration in the chak carved out over plot no.380/27, 378 etc by providing larger area of original holding of the petitioner. 17. In this conspectus as discussed above, I do not find any merit in the present writ petition warranting indulgence of this Hon'ble Court to exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Petition is totally devoid on merits, therefore, is accordingly dismissed. There is no order for cost.