Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 2402 (ALL)

Sohan Lal v. State of U. P.

2024-11-23

CHANDRA KUMAR RAI

body2024
JUDGMENT : Chandra Kumar Rai, J. 1. Supplementary affidavit filed today on behalf of the petitioner, is taken on record. 2. Heard Mr. Ashok Kumar Dwivedi, learned counsel holding brief of Mr. Krishna Chandra Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Vidya Dhar Yadav, learned counsel for respondent No.5, Mr. Azad Rai, learned counsel for Gaon Sabha and Mr. Ashish Chand Nishad, learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents. 3. Brief facts of the case are that petitioner is chak holder no.339 and respondent No.5 is chak holder No.299. Assistant Consolidation Officer has proposed chak two chaks to the petitioner. First chak on plot No.108m, 111m, 113M and second chak on plot No.133M, 164M and 166M. Against the proposal of the Assistant Consolidation Officer, chak objection was filed by petitioner as well as respondent No.5 and Consolidation Officer vide order dated 16.09.2019/ 17.03.2020 decided the chak objections Consolidation Officer vide order dated 16.09.2019 alloted chak to respondent No.5 on plot No.133 and 163 taking out the plot No.191 and 192. Against the order of consolidation Officer dated 16.09.2019 chak appeal was filed by respondent No.5 under Section 21 (2) of U.P.Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as the U.P.C.H. Act) claiming the chak on plot No.113 in lieu of plot nos.133 and 163. Settlement Officer of Consolidation vide order dated 22.03.2022 allowed the appeal and allotted plot No.111M and 113M to the respondent No.5 taking out the aforesaid area of the plot from chak of the petitioner accordingly, petitioner was adjusted on plot No.133 and 163. Against the aforementioned appellate order dated 22.03.2022 chak revision was filed by petitioner which was allowed and matter was remitted back before the appellate court to decide the case afresh. In pursuance of the remand order passed by appellate court Settlement Officer Consolidation again heard the matter and vide order dated 23.01.2024, allowed the appeal of respondent No.5 recording finding of fact that by making adjustment between the petitioner and respondent no.5 petitioner shall not be affected as source of irrigation which is situated on plot No.113 shall remain in the share of the petitioner. Against the appellate order dated 23.01.2024 petitioner filed revision under Section 48 of the U.P.C.H,. Act. Against the appellate order dated 23.01.2024 petitioner filed revision under Section 48 of the U.P.C.H,. Act. The aforementioned revision was heard and dismissed vide order dated 21.03.2024, hence this writ petition following relief:- "(i) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 21.03.2024 passed by Deputy Director of Consolidation, Kaushambi in revision No.0068 of 2024 having its computerized case No.202454024200000068 filed under Section 48 of U.P.C.H. Act and order dated 23.01.2024 passed by Settlement officer of Consolidation, Kaushambi in Appeal No.12 of 2023 having its computerized case No.202454024200000009 filed under Section 21 (2) of U.P.C.H. Act." 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that petitioner was rightly proposed chak according to his share in plot No.111 and 113 along with other plots, but Settlement Officer of Consolidation has illegally interfered with the proposal made by Assistant Consolidation officer. He further submitted that case of the petitioner has not been considered in the light of the provisions contained under Section 19 of U.P.C.H. Act. and appeal filed by contesting respondent has been allowed disturbing the chak of the petitioner. He further submitted that respondent No.5 has changed his demand in appeal, which cannot be permitted in the allotment of chak proceeding. He submitted that demand set up before the Consolidation Officer was different to the demand made in appeal before Settlement Officer of Consolidation. He next submitted that revision filed by petitioner has been dismissed in arbitrary manner without considering the grounds as set up in revision as well as argued before the revisional court, as such revisional order be set aside and the stage of consolidation Officer be maintained. 5. On the hand, Mr. V.D. Yadav, learned counsel for respondent No.5 submitted that adjustment has rightly been made by Settlement Officer of consolidation between petitioner and respondent No.5. He submitted that petitioner is still having area more than his original area in respect to plot No.113, as such petitioner is not entitled to any relief in the matter. 5. On the hand, Mr. V.D. Yadav, learned counsel for respondent No.5 submitted that adjustment has rightly been made by Settlement Officer of consolidation between petitioner and respondent No.5. He submitted that petitioner is still having area more than his original area in respect to plot No.113, as such petitioner is not entitled to any relief in the matter. He further submitted that source of irrigation belonging to the petitioner is situated in the area of plot No.113 which has been allotted to him under the order of Settlement Officer of Consolidation, as such no prejudice has been caused to petitioner under the appellate order passed by Settlement Officer of Consolidation.He further submitted that revision filed by petitioner has been dismissed considering the case of petitioner in accordance with the provisions of U.P.C.H. Act. 6. I have considered the arguments advanced by the earned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 7. There is no dispute about the fact that chak objection filed by respondent no.5 was disposed of by the Consolidation Officer but in chak appeal the respondent No.5 has been adjusted on plot No.111 and 113 taking out the area from the chak of the petitioner. There is also no dispute about the fact that revision filed by the petitioner has been dismissed. 8. In order to appreciate the controversy involved in the matter, the perusal of impugned revisional order dated 21.03.2024 will be relevant which is as under:- 9. Perusal of C.H. form 23 of the petitioner, respondent No.5 as well as orders passed by Settlement officer of Consolidation and Deputy Director of Consolidation as quoted above fully demonstrate that petitioner is still having area more than his original area in respect to the plot No.113 and area of plot No.113 in which petitioner's source of irrigation is situated is still in the chak of the petitioner, as such no interference is required against the order of Settlement Officer of Consolidation by which the part of area of Plot No.113 has been taken out from the chak of the petitioner and the same has been allotted to contesting respondent No.5. 10. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, no interference is required against the impugned orders passed by consolidation Authorities in allotment of chak proceeding. 11. Writ petition is dismissed.