Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 1861 (ALL)

Sabir Ali v. Deputy Director Of Consolidation

2024-08-08

DINESH PATHAK

body2024
JUDGMENT : Dinesh Pathak, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondent nos.1 & 2 as well as learned counsel appearing for private respondent no.3 and perused the records. 2. Petitioner is aggrieved with the order dated 11.11.2021 passed by Deputy Director of Consolidation, affirming the orders dated 13.03.2020 and 26.06.2020 passed by Consolidation Officer, whereby area of Plot No.557 has been corrected to be measuring area 1.015 hectare in place of measuring area 2.562 hectare and its exchange value has been fixed to be eighty (80) paise, respectively. 3. Facts culled out from the records are that instant writ petition is arising out of proceeding under Section 9 -A(2) of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act. Plot No.557, which has been allotted in the Chak of Ramesh Chandra Sharma (respondent no.3), was kept out of the consolidation operation, vide order dated 07.07.2017 passed by the Consolidation Officer, on the basis of the report dated 28.06.2017 submitted by the Assistant Consolidation Officer. At later stage, a recall/restoration application has been filed by respondent no.3 who is the tenure-holder. The said recall application was allowed and the order dated 07.07.2017 was recalled. During pendency of proceedings, Consolidation Officer has called for the report from the authorities concerned with respect to the nature of Plot No.557. Having considered the report dated 06.12.2019 and 25.10.2018 submitted by the Assistant Consolidation Officer and report dated 30.12.2019 submitted by Chief Treasurer, the Consolidation Officer, vide order dated 13.03.2020, has corrected the area of Plot No.557 measuring area 2.562 hectare to be the area measuring 1.015 hectare and, accordingly, dimensions of said plot has been corrected in the map along with other surrounding plots. By subsequent order dated 26.06.2020, Consolidation Officer has fixed exchange value of Plot No.557 measuring area 1.015 hectare to be eighty (80) paise. 4. Having been aggrieved with the orders dated 13.03.2020 & 26.06.2020, three appeals were preferred. Settlement Officer of Consolidation, vide order dated 12.08.2021, has quashed the orders dated 13.03.2020 and 26.06.2020 passed by the Consolidation Officer, reviving the previous map and status of Plot No.557 whereby it was kept out of consolidation operation. Having been aggrieved with the order dated 12.08.2021 passed by the Settlement Officer of Consolidation, respondent no.3 (Rameshchandra Sharma) has filed revision. Settlement Officer of Consolidation, vide order dated 12.08.2021, has quashed the orders dated 13.03.2020 and 26.06.2020 passed by the Consolidation Officer, reviving the previous map and status of Plot No.557 whereby it was kept out of consolidation operation. Having been aggrieved with the order dated 12.08.2021 passed by the Settlement Officer of Consolidation, respondent no.3 (Rameshchandra Sharma) has filed revision. Deputy Director of Consolidation, vide order dated 29.10.2021, has allowed the revision and quashed the order dated 12.08.2021 passed by the Settlement Officer of Consolidation. Consequently, orders dated 13.03.2020 and 26.06.2020 passed by the Consolidation Officer have been affirmed. 5. Deputy Director of Consolidation has given categorical finding that exchange value of Plot No.557 has already been fixed in statement of principals before distribution of CH-Form-5, to wit, before the notification promulgated under Section 9 of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, however, at later stage, without any justification, aforesaid plot has been ordered to be kept out of Consolidation Operation, vide order dated 07.07.2017. Thus, prima facie, provisions as enunciated under Section 24 of U.P.C.H. Act and guidelines issued by Directorate have not been seemed to be violated. Contesting respondents in the revision have simply referred the violation of Section 24 of U.P.C.H. Act, however, failed to demonstrate as to what prejudice encompassed to them owing to determining the area of Plot No.557 and it's exchange value, and accordingly correcting the map. Revisionist (respondent no.3 herein), who has been allotted Plot No.557 in his chak, has consented to the order dated 13.03.2020 whereby area of Plot No.557 has been determined to be 1.015 hectare in place of previous settlement area 2.562 hectare. It is further observed by Deputy Director of Consolidation that order dated 12.08.2021 has illegally been passed by the Settlement Officer of Consolidation quashing the orders dated 13.03.2020 and 26.06.2020 passed by the Consolidation Officer. There was no justification to keep the aforesaid plot no.557 out of the Consolidation Operation. Deputy Director of Consolidation has categorically stated that exchange value of other plots, i.e., 555, 560, 564, 382 vicinity to the plot no.557 have already been fixed in the Consolidation Operation as per their settlement area. It is apposite to mention that petitioner and other persons are not co-sharers in Plot No.557 and are not directly affected owing to any change in Plot No.557. It is apposite to mention that petitioner and other persons are not co-sharers in Plot No.557 and are not directly affected owing to any change in Plot No.557. It is the respondent no.3 who could be affected owing to reduction in area of Plot No.557, however, he has no objection to it. In no manner, present petitioner could be held to be prejudiced. Finding of fact returned by the Deputy Director of Consolidation has not been refuted by the petitioner in the instant writ petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner, however, has failed to establish as to how petitioner is prejudiced or aggrieved with the order dated 29.10.2021 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation whereby orders passed by the Consolidation Officer dated 13.03.2020 and 26.06.2020 have been affirmed. 6. In this conspectus, as above, I do not find any justifiable ground to entertain the instant writ petition and interfere in the order impugned passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation. There is no apparent illegality, perversity or ambiguity in the order under challenge so as to warrant the indulgence of this Court in exercise of its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. There is nothing on the record to demonstrate as to how the present petitioner is prejudiced, or if there is any likelihood of causing miscarriage of justice to him, owing to the order impugned. 7. Resultantly, instant writ petition, being devoid of merits and misconceived, is dismissed with no order as to costs.