Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 1919 (ALL)

Ramsajeevan v. State Of U. P.

2024-08-21

DINESH PATHAK

body2024
JUDGMENT : Dinesh Pathak, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned counsel for respondent no.4 as well as learned Standing Counsel. 2. Grievance of the petitioners is that they have illegally been dislodged from their largest original holding in violation of the provisions as enunciated under Section 19(1)(e) of the Uttar Pradesh Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (in brevity U.P.C.H. Act). 3. Facts culled out from the record are that in provisional consolidation scheme petitioner no.1 has been proposed chak no.265 at two places; first chak over plot no.521 measuring area 0.504 hectare and second chak over plot nos.464, 465, 466, 467, 480 and 481/2 measuring area 0.360 hectare, total seven plots measuring area 0.864 hectare. Likewise, petitioner no.2 has been proposed Chak No.213 at three places; first chak over plot nos.515, 516 and 512 measuring area 0.250 hectare, second chak over plot no.521 measuring area 0.275 hectare and third chak over plot nos.158/2, 159/1, 160, 157/7, 194, 195 and 196/1 measuring area 1.532 hectare, total 11 plots measuring area 2.057 hectare. During the consolidation operation, respondent no.4 has purchased the property, accordingly, her separate chak has been carved out being chak no.381-Aa. Objection under Section 20 of U.P.C.H. Act filed on behalf of respondent no.4 has partially been allowed by the Consolidation Officer, vide order dated 24.06.2021. Having been aggrieved with the said order, respondent no.4 has preferred an appeal dated 25.03.2023 claiming carvation of Chak abutting her abadi site. In the appeal she has also referred the order dated 17.5.2022 passed under Section 12 of U.P.C.H. Act. Settlement Officer of Consolidation dismissed the appeal vide, order dated 27.04.2023, on the ground that her chak no.381-Aa has already been modified by order dated 21.12.2021 passed by Settlement Officer of Consolidation in appeal No.54/2021. Having been aggrieved, respondent no.4 has filed revision. Deputy Director of Consolidation has allowed the revision by order dated 24.06.2024, which is under challenged before this Court. 4. Having considered the rival submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perusal of the record, it is manifested that Deputy Director of Consolidation has slightly changed the chak of Ram Devi w/o Lallu chak holder no.220, present petitioners and Rani Devi (respondent no.4) including the Bachat land to provide proper access area to the parties and also adjusted them beside their abadi sites. However, Ram Devi (chak no. However, Ram Devi (chak no. 220) has not been made party in the cause title of the instant writ petition, despite the fact that her plot Nos. 478 and 479 have been allotted in the chak of petitioner no.1 and Bachat land (plot No. 158/2) has been allotted in her chak. 5. I am skeptical of the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the petitioners that petitioners have totally been displaced from their original holdings and the area situated in front of their house. So far as petitioner no.2/Rajesh Kumar is concerned, it is evident from the amendment chart appended to the order passed by Deputy Director of Consolidation and C.H. Form 23 that in provisional consolidation scheme, Assistant Consolidation Officer has allotted second chak to the petitioner no.2 over plot no.521 measuring area 0.275 hectare with the exchange value of 80 paise having valuation of Rs.22.00. Deputy Director of Consolidation has taken out measuring area 0.107 hectare from plot no.521 area 0.275 hectare and, in its place, he has been proposed chak over plot nos.196/1 and 196/3. However, Plot no. 196/1 has already been proposed in his third chak. Petitioner no. 2 has never raised any objection against the allotment of his Chak over Plot No. 196/1. Moreover, there is no pleading on his behalf either before this Court or before the Consolidation courts that his house is situated in front of plot Nos.521 or 464 or 465. Needless to say that Plot No. 521 has been proposed in Chak of petitioner no. 2 in provisional consolidation scheme and Deputy Director of Consolidation has taken partial area of the said plot. It is not reflected from C.H. Form-23 that plot Nos.464, 654 and 521 are original holdings of petitioner no.2. In this view of the matter, no prejudice caused to the petitioner no.2. 6. So far as the petitioner no.1 is concerned, it is evident that Deputy Director of Consolidation has taken out the area from plot nos.464, 465, 466, 467 and 481/2 which were proposed in his second Chak. It is apposite to mention that second Chak of the petitioner no. 1 was having valuation of Rs.30.67 paise, however, out of that, area having valuation of Rs.13.44 paise has been taken out from his Chak and the said valuation has been adjusted over the plot nos.521, 478 and 479. It is apposite to mention that second Chak of the petitioner no. 1 was having valuation of Rs.30.67 paise, however, out of that, area having valuation of Rs.13.44 paise has been taken out from his Chak and the said valuation has been adjusted over the plot nos.521, 478 and 479. Perusal of C.H. Form-23 reveals that Plot No. 521 measuring area 0.5260 hectare is original holding of the petitioner no.1 and his first Chak has been proposed over plot no. 521 measuring area 0.504 hectare. Owing to the order passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation, more area measuring 0.107 hectare has been allotted in his first chak having valuation of Rs.8.56 paise, which has been taken out from the chak of petitioner no.2. Therefore, shifting his chak from plot Nos.464, 465, 467 etc. to plot no.521 etc. will not prejudice his interests and no case is made out, as submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioner no.1 has entirely been displaced from his original holdings. As per ground No. (H) of the writ petition, plot No.481/2 with an area of 0.100 hectares is situated in front of house of the petitioner no.1. CH Form 23 of petitioner no.1 reveals that Plot no.481/2 does not belongs to him, rather, he has been proposed second chak consisting of plot No.481/2 measuring area 0.078 hectares and out of said area, the DDC has taken only 0.011 hectares. Therefore, a very small portion of plot No.481/2 has been taken out from the chak of the petitioners and the remaining area 0.067 hectares still in the possession of the petitioner no.1, which cannot be considered as a narrow passage towards west to east in the middle of the chak of the petitioner no.1, as submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner. So far as dislodging the petitioner No.1 from his their original holdings no. 464 and 465 is concerned, having considered the proposed chak over their, it can hardly be assumed that any irreparable loss has been caused to the petitioner no.1 in the provisional consolidation scheme. The petitioners have been proposed an area of 0.070 hectares over plot no.464 and measuring area 0.020 hectares over plot no.465. 464 and 465 is concerned, having considered the proposed chak over their, it can hardly be assumed that any irreparable loss has been caused to the petitioner no.1 in the provisional consolidation scheme. The petitioners have been proposed an area of 0.070 hectares over plot no.464 and measuring area 0.020 hectares over plot no.465. The area of said plot has been adjusted over plot nos.478 and 479, and, as per the observation made by the DDC, the change was necessary for the purpose of development of the agricultural work and to provide access to the chak holders. No plea has been taken on behalf of the petitioners that they have been deprived of access road/chak road owing to the order impugned. It is apposite to mention that petitioner no.1 (Ramsajeevan), who was arrayed as respondent no.4 in memo of revision before Deputy Director of Consolidation, has not filed any objection in revision. Rajesh Kumar (petitioner no.2) has filed objection. In paragraph no.8 of the said objection, it is stated that chak of Ramsajeevan has been proposed over plot nos.464, 480, 479 and 481/2 which is adjoining his house, however, there is no case that plot nos.464 and 465 are situated in front of house of petitioner no.1. Thus, in my considered opinion, the Deputy Director of Consolidation has rightly shifted the valuation of plot no.464 and 465 etc. (second chak of petitioner) over the plot nos.521, 478 and 479 which are adjoining plots and compact area has been given to the petitioners over there as per provisional consolidation scheme as enunciated under Section 19 of the Act. In this view of the matter, no prejudice would cause to the petitioners, owing to the order passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation, all the parties have been adjusted at one place over the compact area. Nothing has been shown on behalf of petitioners as to how provisions as enunciated under Section 19 of UPCH Act has been violated or as to how they are prejudiced owing to the order passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation. 7. 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 Deputy Director of Consolidation. 7. 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 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 petitioners are prejudiced, or if there is any likelihood of causing miscarriage of justice to them, owing to the order impugned. Resultantly, instant writ petition, being devoid of merits and misconceived, is dismissed with no order as to costs.