Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 15 (ALL)

Prahalad v. Deputy Director Of Consolidation

2023-01-03

DINESH PATHAK

body2023
JUDGMENT : 1. Supplementary affidavit filed by the petitioner is taken on record. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and with their consent this Court proceeds to decide this matter finally at admission stage. 3. The petitioner has invoked the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court by way of filing instant writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India assailing the order dated 30.09.2022 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation. 4. Instant writ petition is arising out of Chak allotment proceeding under Section 21 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act. Grievance of the petitioner is that the Deputy Director of Consolidation has illegally reversed the order passed by the Settlement Officer of Consolidation and affirmed the order passed by the Consolidation Officer without adhering to the grievance of the petitioners that they are entitled for larger area over plot No. 46/1 which is their original holding. 5. Facts culled out from the averments as made in the writ petition are that in the Provisional Consolidation Scheme, Prahalad (petitioner no. 1) has been proposed Chak No. 234, Nepal (petitioner no. 2) has been proposed Chak No. 217 and Kusma Devi (respondent no. 4) has been proposed Chak No. 29. Respondent No. 4 has filed objection under Section 21 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act alleging therein that plot No. 46/1 is her original holding, consists of area 0.090 hectare, however, she has illegally been proposed only 0.007 hectare over there and has illegally been allotted Udan Chak over plot No. 40 area 0.079 hectare. Considering the pleadings of the parties Consolidation Officer, vide order dated 03.03.2022, has allotted the plot No. 46/1 area 0.086 hectare to the respondent No. 4 and, accordingly, Chak of both the petitioners were modified. Having been aggrieved, petitioners preferred appeal before the Settlement Officer of Consolidation being Appeal No. 453 (Prahalad Vs. Kusma Devi) and Appeal No. 452 (Nepal Vs. Kusma Devi). Both appeals were clubbed and allowed by common order dated 26.07.2022 passed by the Settlement Officer of Consolidation reversing the order passed by the Consolidation Officer. Deputy Director of Consolidation, on revision being filed on behalf of Kusma Devi (respondent no. 4), has allowed the revision and reversed the order passed by the Settlement Officer of Consolidation affirming the order of Consolidation Officer. Deputy Director of Consolidation, on revision being filed on behalf of Kusma Devi (respondent no. 4), has allowed the revision and reversed the order passed by the Settlement Officer of Consolidation affirming the order of Consolidation Officer. Having been aggrieved against the order of the Deputy Director of Consolidation, instant petition has been filed by the petitioners. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are the original tenure holders of plot No. 46/1 and have their own source of irrigation over there, therefore, they are entitled for the larger area of plot No. 46/1. The Settlement Officer of Consolidation has rightly allowed the appeal considering the claim of the petitioners with respect to the source of irrigation. It is further submitted that the Deputy Director of Consolidation has illegally allowed the revision without properly appreciating the evidence on record and without considering the fact that plot No. 46/1 is their original holding. It is further submitted that the order passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation is illegal, unwarranted under the law and tainted with irregularities, therefore, it is liable to be quashed. 7. Per contra, learned counsel for the private respondent No. 4 has contended that the respondent No. 4 had two original holdings i.e. plot No. 46/1 measuring area 0.260 hectare and plot No. 46/1 measuring area 0.53 hectare, however, Assistant Consolidation Officer has illegaly proposed Udan Chak over plot No. 40 and given meagre area measuring about 0.007 hectare over plot No. 46/1 which amounts depriving the petitioner from his original holding. It is further submitted that the Consolidation Officer has rightly allowed the objection considering the original holding of the respondent No. 4 and allotted Chak over plot No. 46/1. Deputy Director of Consolidation has rightly appreciated the reasoning given by the Consolidation Officer and legally reversed the judgment passed by the Settlement Officer of Consolidation. It is further submitted that there is no illegality, perversity and ambiguity in the impugned judgment warranting indulgence of this Court in exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 8. Having considered the rival submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perusal of records, it reveals that plot No. 46/1 measuring area 0.065 hectare and plot No. 46/1 measuring area 0.027 hectare (as per her share) were original holdings of the respondent No. 4. 8. Having considered the rival submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perusal of records, it reveals that plot No. 46/1 measuring area 0.065 hectare and plot No. 46/1 measuring area 0.027 hectare (as per her share) were original holdings of the respondent No. 4. In Provisional Consolidation Scheme, she has been proposed Chak No. 39 consists of plot No. 40 measuring area 0.079 hectare and plot No. 46 /1 measuring area 0.007 hectare. However, Prahalad (petitioner No. 1) had 28 original holding measuring area 0.157 hectare. In Provisional Consolidation Scheme he has been proposed Chak No. 234 at one place i.e. over plot No. 46/1 measuring area 0.0171 hectare. Likewise, Nepal (petitioner No. 2) had 28 original holding area 0.158 hectares. In Provisional Consolidation Scheme he has been proposed Chak No. 217 at one place i.e. over plot No. 46/1 measuring 0.171 hectares. 9. Perusal of CH form 23, belonging to all the three parties, reveals that petitioner No. 1 and 2 are entitled only measuring area 0.011 hectare each over plot No. 46/1 min., however, they have been allotted area 0.171 hectare each over the said plot. On the other side, plot No. 46/1 area 0.065 hectare and plot No. 46/1 area 0.027 hectare are the original holding of the respondent No. 4 and according to her share, she is entitled 0.090 hectare over plot No. 46/1. In Provisional Consolidation Scheme, Assistant Consolidation Officer has taken larger area of plot No. 46/1 from the respondent No. 4 and she had been allotted a very meagre area measuring 0.007 hectare over there. Besides that, she had been proposed Udan Chak over plot No. 40 measuring area 0.079 hectare. 10. Prima facie, it appears that the petitioners were benefitted by giving Chak at one place over plot No. 46/1 min. that too, more than their entitlement over there. The Consolidation Officer and Deputy Director of Consolidation have rightly considered this aspect of the matter and legally allotted Chak to the respondent No. 4 over plot No. 46/1 after making minor change in the Chak of the petitioner No. 1 and petitioner No. 2. that too, more than their entitlement over there. The Consolidation Officer and Deputy Director of Consolidation have rightly considered this aspect of the matter and legally allotted Chak to the respondent No. 4 over plot No. 46/1 after making minor change in the Chak of the petitioner No. 1 and petitioner No. 2. It is evident from CH form 23 that out of measuring area 0.171 hectare, as allotted in the Provisional Consolidation Scheme by the Assistant Consolidation Officer, an area 0.086 hectare has been taken out from Chaks of each of the petitioners and the remaining area still stands with the petitioner No. 1 and 2. Amendment chart appended to the order passed by the Consolidation Officer reveals that the measuring area of 0.86 hectare, which has been taken from the Chak of Nepal (petitioner No. 2) has been given into Chak of Prahalad (petitioner No. 1) and area which has been taken from the Chak of the Prahalad (petitioner No. 1) has been given to the Chak of Kusma Devi (respondent No. 4). 11. Even after modification, as made by the Consolidation Officer affirmed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation, petitioner No. 1 and 2 are in possession of more than area over plot no. 46/1 for which they were entitled over there i.e. maximum up to 0.011 hectare. Deputy Director of Consolidation has rightly allowed the revision adverting to the grievance of the respondent No. 4 and more so, properly considered the case of both the petitioners. 12. Counsel for the petitioner has failed to substantiate his submissions as advanced by him assailing the impugned order passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation. There is no illegality, perversity or ambiguity in the impugned order passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation to warrant indulgence of this Court in exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. There is nothing on record to demonstrate as to how the petitioners are prejudiced, or is there any likelihood of causing miscarriage of justice to the petitioners, due to the impugned order passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation (respondent No. 1). 13. This Court did not find any merit in the writ petition. Resultantly, the present writ petition, being misconceived and devoid of merits, is dismissed with no order as to the cost.