Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 2369 (ALL)

Sagir Ahmad v. State Of U. P.

2024-11-19

CHANDRA KUMAR RAI

body2024
JUDGMENT : Chandra Kumar Rai, J. 1. Heard Mr. Srikrishna Mishra assised by Mr. Mohd Mohiuddin Siddiqui, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Tawvab Ahmed Khan, learned counsel for contesting respondent nos. 4 and 5 and learned Standing Counsel for the State respondents. 2. Brief facts of the case are that petitioner and respondent no.3 are real brother. Respondent nos. 4 and 5 are the nephew of the petitioner. Petitioner is chak holder No. 1564 and original holdings of the petitioner are plot Nos. 619, 637, 606M, 652, 589M, total area 0.594 hectare. Petitioner was proposed single chak on plot Nos. 652 and 653M, total area 0.594 hectare. Respondent no.3 is chak holder No. 1676 and original holdings of the respondent no.3 are plot Nos. 629, 637, 606M, 652, 589M, 606 total area 0.490 hectare. Respondent no.3 was proposed single chak on plot Nos. 638, 637 total area 0.514 hectare. Father of respondent nos. 4 and 5 namely Jameer Ahamad was chak holder No. 462 and original holdings of Jameer Ahamad are plot Nos. 619, 637, 606, 652, 589, total area 0.403 hectare. Jameer Ahamad was proposed single chak on plot No. 619 area 0.369 hectare. Petitioner filed a chak objection under Section 21 (1) of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 hereinafter referred to as U.P.C.H. Act before Consolidation Officer for allotment of chak on plot No. 619 in place of plot Nos. 652 and 653, the aforementioned objection was registered as case No. 91 Sagir Ahamad Vs. State. Consolidation Officer vide order dated 10.3.2017 allowed the objection filed by petitioner allotting him chak on plot No. 619 in place of plot Nos. 652, 653, the aforementioned objection was registered as case No.91 Sagir Ahamad vs. State. Consolidation Officer vide order dated 10.03.2017 allowed the objection filed by petitioner allotting him chak on plot No.619 in place of plot Nos.652, 653. Respondent nos. 4 and 5 challenged the order dated 10.3.2017 in appeal under Section 21 (2) of U.P.C.H. Act before Settlement Officer Consolidation with the prayer that should be allotted chak on plot No. 619 as the plot No. 619 is roadside plot of both parties. The aforementioned appeals was heard and allowed by Settlement Officer Consolidation vide order dated 23.5.2017 allotting chak to respondent nos. 4 and 5 on plot No. 619 area 0.264. The aforementioned appeals was heard and allowed by Settlement Officer Consolidation vide order dated 23.5.2017 allotting chak to respondent nos. 4 and 5 on plot No. 619 area 0.264. Petitioner challenged the appellate order dated 23.5.2017 through revision under Section 48 of U.P.C.H. Act before Deputy Director of Consolidation. Respondent no.4 also filed revision under Section 48 of U.P.C.H. Act praying for single chak on plot No. 619. The aforementioned revisions was heard together and vide order dated 24.3.2018 the revision filed by petitioner was fully allowed and revision filed by respondent no.4 was allowed in part. Respondent nos. 4 and 5 filed a restoration application dated 28.3.2018 as well as Hasrat Ali filed a restoration application dated 5.4.2018 against the order dated 24.3.2018 which have been rejected vide order dated 24.5.2018 by Deputy Director of Consolidation. Respondent nos. 4 and 5 filed a writ B No. 4576 of 2018 and respondent no.3 filed a writ B No. 4583 of 2018 against the orders dated 24.3.2018 and 24.5.2018 which were heard and allowed by this Court by separate orders dated 25.07.2023 setting aside the orders dated 24.03.2018 & 24.5.2018 and remanded the matter back before Deputy Director of Consolidation to decide the revision afresh within period of six months. In pursuance of the order of this Court dated 25.7.2023, Deputy Director of Consolidation vide order dated 18.3.2024 dismissed the revision filed by petitioner and revision filed by respondent no.4 was dismissed as not pressed resulting into maintaining the Settlement Officer Consolidation stage. Hence this writ petition for the following reliefs:- "(i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned judgement and order dated 18.3.2024 passed by respondent no.2, Deputy Director of Consolidation, Sambhal, Camp Amroha in revision No. 0600 of 2023, computerized case No. 202354133800000600 (Sagir Ahmad Vs. Sultan and others) u/s 48 (1) of Consolidation of Holdings Act. (ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents not to dispossess the petitioner from the land in dispute." 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that petitioner is in possession of the plot No. 619 prior to notification of the consolidation operation in the Village. He further submitted that petitioner's source of irrigation is situated in plot No. 619, as such, petitioner is entitled for single chak on plot No. 619. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that petitioner is in possession of the plot No. 619 prior to notification of the consolidation operation in the Village. He further submitted that petitioner's source of irrigation is situated in plot No. 619, as such, petitioner is entitled for single chak on plot No. 619. He further submitted that respondent no.3 has been allotted chak on plot No. 637 which is also roadside plot, as such, impugned order passed by revisional Court is wholly illegal. He further submitted that plot No. 619 is original holding of the petitioner and petitioner is small tenure holder, as such, petitioner cannot be deprived from plot No. 619. He further submitted that impugned revisional order has been passed without considering the provision contained under Section 19 of U.P.C.H. Act, as such, impugned order is liable to be set aside and petitioner is entitled for allotment of single chak on his original plot No. 619. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for contesting respondents submitted that plot No. 619 is original roadside plot of petitioner as well as contesting respondents having share as mentioned in C.H. Form 23 of the respective parties. He further submitted that Settlement Officer Consolidation in appeal and Deputy Director of Consolidation under impugned revisional order dated 18.3.2024 has adjusted the petitioner as well as contesting respondents to the original roadside plot No. 619 according to their share, as such, there is no illegality in the impugned order and writ petition filed by petitioner is liable to be dismissed. 5. I have considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perused the records. 6. The undisputed facts of the case are that plot No. 619 is original roadside plot of petitioner as well as contesting respondents. 7. The Settlement Officer Consolidation has adjusted the petitioner and respondent nos. 4 and 5 on roadside plot no. 619 according to their share accordingly both parties filed their revision for allotment of single chak on road side plot No. 619. 8. Deputy Director of Consolidation vide earlier order dated 24.3.2018 allotted single chak to petitioner on plot No. 619 and respondent nos. 4 and 5 on roadside plot no. 619 according to their share accordingly both parties filed their revision for allotment of single chak on road side plot No. 619. 8. Deputy Director of Consolidation vide earlier order dated 24.3.2018 allotted single chak to petitioner on plot No. 619 and respondent nos. 4 and 5 has been deprived from plot No. 619 but the order dated 24.3.2018 has been set aside by this Court vide order dated 25.7.2023 and matter was remitted back before revisional Court for fresh decision accordingly revisional Court made the spot inspection and has found that plot No. 619 is roadside plot, as such, both parties are entitled for chak on roadside plot No. 619 according to their share accordingly Deputy Director of Consolidation finally ordered for allotment of chak on road side plot no.619 according to their share which is correct exercise of jurisdiction by Deputy Director of Consolidation while passing the impugned revisional order. It is also material that revision filed by respondent no. 4 for allotment of further remaining area of roadside plot No. 619 has been dismissed as not pressed, as such, no further interference is required by this Court in respect to allotment of chak proceeding, which is going on for last seven years. 9. So far as law with respect to allotment of original roadside plot under U.P.C.H. Act is concern, the allotment should be made to every chak holder to the roadside plot according to their share in their original roadside plot which has been done in the instant matter by Settlement Officer Consolidation and Deputy Director of Consolidation. 10. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, no interference is required against the impugned order dated 18.3.2024 passed by respondent no.2/ Deputy Director of Consolidation, Sambhal Camp Amroha. 11. The writ petition is dismissed accordingly.