Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 1940 (ALL)

Israil Khan v. D. D. C.

2024-08-27

DINESH PATHAK

body2024
JUDGMENT : Dinesh Pathak, J. 1. List revised. Learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents are present. None is present for the private respondents. This Court, vide order dated 06.08.2024, has deemed the service of notice upon the private respondents sufficient. 2. The petitioner has invoked the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India assailing the order dated 18.12.1989 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation (in brevity 'D.D.C.') partly allowing the revision no.2701 filed on behalf of the present petitioner. 3. Facts culled out from the record are that instant writ petition is arising out of chak allotment proceeding. During provisional consolidation scheme, present petitioner has been proposed chak no.48 at two places; first chak consists of plot nos.55, 66 etc. and second chak consists of plot nos.84, 85 etc. Grievance of the petitioner is that the Consolidation Officer has illegally allotted the area for drainage lane being plot no. 56 through his plot no.55, therefore, area of drainage lane (plot no.56) may be taken out and his chak over plot no.55 may be carved out towards the western side of the drainage lane. The Settlement Officer of Consolidation (in brevity 'S.O.C.'), vide order dated 31.01.1989, has dismissed the appeal filed on behalf of the petitioner. Having been aggrieved with the order passed by the S.O.C., the petitioner has preferred revision. The D.D.C., vide order impugned dated 18.12.1989, has partly allowed the revision, which is under challenge before this Court. 4. Having considered the rival submissions advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Standing Counsel and perusal of record, it is manifested that before the S.O.C., the petitioner came with the plea that his first chak over plot no.55 may be modified to the extent that same may be carved out towards the western portion of drainage lane (plot no.56). The S.O.C. has dismissed the appeal on the ground that plot no.56 has been earmarked for drainage lane which runs through plot no.54, therefore, change in the location of chak allotted to the petitioner is not feasible. The S.O.C. has dismissed the appeal on the ground that plot no.56 has been earmarked for drainage lane which runs through plot no.54, therefore, change in the location of chak allotted to the petitioner is not feasible. However, while filing the revision, petitioner came with new plea that the area allotted in his first chak is uneven which is causing difficulty in cultivation and maximum area of the chak is fallen under the drainage lane, therefore, he may be allotted chak including the entire area of plots no.55 and 56. Second plea has been taken to shift his second chak over plots no.80 and 81. Third plea has been taken that area of plot no.49 etc. may be adjusted over the aforesaid plots no.80 and 81. The D.D.C. has partly allowed the revision whereby area of plots no.55, 56, 75, 76, 82 and 83 having valuation of Rs.184.34 paise has been taken out from the chak of the petitioner and equal valuation of area i.e. Rs.184.34 paise has been allotted in the chak of the petitioner over plots no.105, 101, 102 etc. It is apposite to mention that the D.D.C., vide order impugned dated 18.12.1989, has modified the chak of several chak holders namely chak nos.435, 242, 267, 224, 311, 176, 237, 303, 161, 296, 422, 85, 86, 434, 436, 49, 283, 453, 13, 222, 526, 500, 407, 484, 196, 301, 463, 329, 297, 91, 93, 320 and 445. However, all these chak holders have not been made party in the instant writ petition. Even entire amendment chart prepared by the D.D.D. in pursuance of the order dated 18.12.1989 has not been filed by the present petitioner. In absence of other chak holders who are affected owing to the order dated 18.12.1989, it would not be justified to interfere with the said order without according opportunity of hearing to them. Prima facie, it appears that no prejudice is caused to the petitioner owing to the order passed by the D.D.C. 5. Solitary submission advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner is that chak of the petitioner has been made four in numbers which is not permissible in the eyes of law. I am skeptical of the submission advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner in this respect. Solitary submission advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner is that chak of the petitioner has been made four in numbers which is not permissible in the eyes of law. I am skeptical of the submission advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner in this respect. Under Section 19 (1) (e) of U.P.C.H. Act, it is provided that as far as possible tenure holder may be provided compact area at one place where he holds the larger part of his holding. First proviso to Section 19 (1) (e) denotes that no tenure holder may be allotted more chaks than three, except with the approval in writing of the D.D.C. Second proviso to Section 19 (1) (e) further clarifies that no proceeding for chak allotment (consolidation made) shall be invalid for the reasons mere that number of chaks allotted to the tenure holder exceeds three. Thus, conjoint reading of first and second proviso to Section 19 (1) (e) explicit that with the prior approval in writing of D.D.C. more than three chaks can be allotted and, in case more than three chaks are allotted, same shall not made consolidation invalid. Moreover, in the given circumstances of the present case, the D.D.C. himself has allotted chak to the petitioner, therefore, there was no need to complete the formality of written approval of the D.D.C. Even otherwise, as per second proviso to Section 19 (1) (e) order passed by the D.D.C. cannot be annulled. 6. The D.D.C. has tried to do complete justice amongst the chak holders and accorded them compact area to the best of the provisions as enunciated under the U.P.C.H. Act and Rules made thereunder. As per observation made by the D.D.C., all the scattered reserved land which belongs to Gaon Sabha and multiple small chaks needs rectification which should be accumulated at one place. The D.D.C. has taken care of the chak of the petitioner, as well, over plot no.55 and redressed his grievance by proposing significant modification in his chak over the aforesaid plot. Remaining plea taken by the petitioner has rightly been turned down by the D.D.C. Finding of fact returned by the D.D.C. has not been refuted by the petitioner in writ petition. He has not shown any grievance except carvation of chak more than three, which has already been dealt with in preceding paragraphs. Remaining plea taken by the petitioner has rightly been turned down by the D.D.C. Finding of fact returned by the D.D.C. has not been refuted by the petitioner in writ petition. He has not shown any grievance except carvation of chak more than three, which has already been dealt with in preceding paragraphs. Apart from that, it is apposite to mention that instant writ petition has been filed on 17.05.1991 with delay against the order dated 18.12.1989. Vide order dated 30.07.1991 petition was admitted and notices were issued, however, no interim order was granted to the petitioner qua his possession over the property in question. Record evince that, vide order dated 24.12.2006, an interim order has been granted restraining the Gaon Sabha not to allot the land in question in favour of third person. There is nothing on record to show that effect and operation of the order passed by the D.D.C. has been stayed or parties have been directed to maintain status quo. Thus, since 18.12.1989 much water has flown under the bridge and all the chak holders of the village, as mentioned above, must have been settled over their allotted chaks. The consolidation authorities are not expected to carved out chaks on the whims of the chak holders. Consolidation Act has been enforced for development of the agricultural work. Certain guidelines have been enunciated under Section 19 of the U.P.C.H. Act which has been expected to be followed, as far as possible, at the time of chak allotment proceeding. I do not find violation of any provision as enunciated under Section 19 of the U.P.C.H. Act. 7. In this conspectus, as above, no justifiable ground is made out to entertain the instant writ petition and interfere with the order impugned passed by the D.D.C. who has partly allowed the revision filed on behalf of the petitioner. There is no illegality, perversity or infirmity 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 record to demonstrate as to how the petitioner is prejudiced, or if there is any likelihood of causing miscarriage of justice to him, owning to order impugned. 8. Resultantly, instant writ petition, being misconceived and devoid on merits, is dismissed with no order as to costs.