Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 2368 (ALL)

Suraj Singh Alias Suraj Dev v. State Of U. P.

2024-11-19

CHANDRA KUMAR RAI

body2024
JUDGMENT : Chandra Kumar Rai, J. 1. Heard Sri Dinesh Rai, learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri .K. Singh, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri S.K. Yadav as well as Sri .M. Tripathi, learned counsel for respondent nos. 5, 6 & 7 and Sri Ashutosh Kumar Rai, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State. 2. Brief facts of the case are that petitioner is Chak Holder of Chak No. 799 & 800. Respondent No. 5 is Chak Holder No. 65. The Assistant Consolidation Officer has proposed single Chak to the petitioner on plot nos. 489M, 496M, 505M. Against the proposal of Assistant Consolidation Officer the Chak Objection was filed by petitioner, which was decided by Consolidation Officer ide order dated 11.02.2020 allotting the Plot No. 496, in which his source of irrigation is situated along with the Plot No. 505. Petitioner was also allotted Plot No. 500, 499 under the order of Consolidation Officer dated 11.02.2020. Against the order of Consolidation Officer petitioner filed Chak Appeal before the Settlement Officer Consolidation claiming that he should be allotted Chak over plot nos. 536 & 539 in place of plot nos. 499 & 500. The aforementioned appeal filed by the petitioners was dismissed ide order dated 23.12.2020. Petitioner challenged the appellate order by way of revision under Section 48 of the U.P.C.H. Act, which was dismissed by Deputy Director of Consolidation ide order dated 15.09.2022. Hence, this writ-petition for following reliefs:- "I) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated 11.02.2020 passed by respondent no. 4 in so far it relates to Chak no. 800, order dated 23.12.2020 passed by respondent no. 3 in Appeal No. 40 of 2020, under section 21(2) of U.P.C.H. Act and order dated 15.9.2022 passed by respondent no. 2 in Revision No. 175/2021530126000033, under section 48(1) of U.P.C.H. Act. II) Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents not to give effect to the impugned orders and direct the parties to maintain status quo on spot. III) Issue any other writ order or direction, which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of the present case. IV) To award the cost of writ petition." 3. This Court entertained the matter and granted interim order on 01.12.2022. III) Issue any other writ order or direction, which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of the present case. IV) To award the cost of writ petition." 3. This Court entertained the matter and granted interim order on 01.12.2022. In pursuance of the order dated 01.12.2022 pleadings have been exchanged between the parties. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Chak Appeal filed by petitioner against the illegal order of Chak allotment passed by Consolidation Officer has been dismissed in arbitrary manner without considering the demand of the petitioner in accordance with law. He further submitted that Settlement Officer Consolidation has not considered the provisions of Section 19 of the U.P.C.H. Act in proper manner and dismissed the appeal in arbitrary manner. He next submitted that the revision filed against the appellate order has also been dismissed illegally under the impugned order. He further submitted that the shop of the Chak allotted to the petitioner under the impugned order has been become 'L' shape, which is not fit for cultivation. He further submitted that in the impugned orders, it is wrongly mentioned that the Chak, which has been allotted to the petitioner by Consolidation Officer is rectangular in shape. He placed the 'Chak Map' of the illage in order to demonstrate that the shape of the Chak of the petitioner has become 'L' shape and the same is not fit for cultivation. He submitted that petitioner has claimed the allotment of the Chak on plot nos. 536 and 539, which are the original holdings of the petitioner, as such the relief claimed by petitioner cannot be denied by the Settlement Officer Consolidation. He further submitted that the impugned appellate order and revisional orders are liable to be set aside and the matter be sent back before the appellate Court to decide the appeal afresh in accordance with law. 5. On the other hand, Sri .K. Singh, learned Senior Counsel appearing for respondent nos. 5 to 7 submitted that petitioner has filed the Chak Objection claiming the allottment of plot in which his source of irrigation is situated and Consolidation Officer has allowed the claim of the petitioner, as such petitioner can not file appeal claiming further relief in the matter. 5 to 7 submitted that petitioner has filed the Chak Objection claiming the allottment of plot in which his source of irrigation is situated and Consolidation Officer has allowed the claim of the petitioner, as such petitioner can not file appeal claiming further relief in the matter. He submitted that petitioner has not impleaded the necessary parties in the instant petition as well as before the Consolidation authorities, as such the writ petition filed by the petitioner cannot be entertained. He next submitted that petitioner's Chak is not effected in any manner by the Chak of respondent nos. 5 to 7. He further submitted that the schedule which is attached along with the order of Consolidation Officer fully demonstrates that petitioner's Chak/claim is not effected in any manner from the Chak of respondent nos. 5 to 7. He next submitted that it is not necessary that every original holdings be allotted to the tenure holder concerned in the alottment of the Chak proceedings. He submitted that Chak map annexed along with writ petition is not correct, as such no interference is required in the matter and the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. 6. Sri Ashutosh Kumar Rai, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for State submitted impugned orders have been passed considering the provision of U.P.C.H. Act, as such no interference is required in the matter. 7. I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 8. There is no dispute about the facts that Chak Objection filed by the petitioner was allowed, but Chak Appeal filed by the petitioner has been dismissed and the Chak revision filed by petitioners has also been dismissed under the impugned orders. 9. In order to appreciate the controversy involved in the matter, perusal of Section 19 of U.P.C.H. Act will be relevant which is as under:- "[19. Conditions to be fulfilled by a Consolidation Scheme. 9. In order to appreciate the controversy involved in the matter, perusal of Section 19 of U.P.C.H. Act will be relevant which is as under:- "[19. Conditions to be fulfilled by a Consolidation Scheme. - (1) A Consolidation Scheme shall fulfill the following conditions, namely, - (a) the rights and liabilities of a tenure-holder, as recorded in the register prepared under Section 10, are, subject to the deductions, if any, made on account of contributions to public purposes under this Act, secured in the lands allotted to him; (b) the aluation of plots allotted to a tenure-holder, subject to deductions, if any, made on account of contributions to public purposes under this Act is equal to the aluation of plots originally held by him: Provided that, except with the permission of the Director of Consolidation, the area of the holding or holdings allotted to a tenure-holder shall not differ from the area of his original holding or holdings by more than twenty five per cent of the latter; (c) the compensation determined under the provisions of this Act, or the rules framed thereunder, is awarded - (1) to the tenure-holder - (i) for trees, wells and other improvements, originally held by him and allotted to another tenure-holders, and (ii) for land contributed by him for public purposes; (2) to the Gaon Sabha, or any other local authority, as the case may be, for development, if any, effected by it in or over land belonging to it and allotted to a tenure-holder; (d) the principles laid down in the Statement of Principles are followed; (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; (f) every tenure-holder is, as far as possible, allotted the plot on which exists his private source of irrigation or any other improvement, together with an area in the icinity equal to the aluation of the plots originally held by him there; and (g) every tenure-holder is, as far as possible, allotted chaks in conformity with the process of rectangulation in rectangulation units. (2) A Consolidation Scheme before it is made final under Section 23, shall be provisionally drawn up in accordance with the provisions of Section 19-A.]" 10. Perusal of the C.H. Form 23 of the petitioner, contesting respondents provision of Section 19 of U.P.C.H. Act as well as the order passed by the Consolidation Officer in the Chak Objection filed by the petitioner fully demonstrate that petitioner has been adjusted on plot no. 496, in which his source of irrigation is situated, as such there is no illegality in allotment of the Chak to the petitioner by Consolidation Officer. Further, filing of Chak appeal by the petitioner claiming the allotment of Chak on his other original holdings cannot be allowed by the Consolidation Authorities. The appeal filed by the petitioner has rightly been dismissed and the revision has also been dismissed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation under Section 48 of the U.P.C.H. Act. 11. Law relating to allotment of Chak under U.P.C.H. Act is well settled that tenure holder be allotted Chak as far as possible on his original largest holding considering the source of irrigation of tenure holder copuled with the process of rectangulation of Chak of tenure holder which has been followed in the instant matter as far as possible. 12. Considering the entire facts an circumstances of the case, there is no scope of interference against the impugned orders passed by Consolidation Authorities in the Chak allotment proceedings. 13. The writ-petition is dismissed. 14. No order as to costs.