Allahabad High Court
Ram Bahadur Lal And 4 Others vs Deputy Director Of Consolidation ... on 20 August, 2019
Author: Salil Kumar Rai
Bench: Salil Kumar Rai
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Court No. - 19 Case :- WRIT - B No. - 55583 of 2016 Petitioner :- Ram Bahadur Lal And 4 Others Respondent :- Deputy Director Of Consolidation Siddharth Nagar And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Tripathi B.G. Bhai Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Anil Kumar Srivastava,Dharam Deo Chauhan AND Case :- WRIT - B No. - 60269 of 2016 Petitioner :- Ram Bahadur Lal And 2 Others Respondent :- Deputy Director Of Consolidation Siddharth Nagar And 2 Ors. Counsel for Petitioner :- Tripathi B.G. Bhai Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,A Kumar Srivastava AND Case :- WRIT - B No. - 60271 of 2016 Petitioner :- Ram Bahadur Lal And 2 Others Respondent :- Deputy Director Of Consolidation Siddharth Nagar And Another Counsel for Petitioner :- Tripathi B.G. Bhai Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,A Kumar Srivastava Hon'ble Salil Kumar Rai,J.
1. Heard Shri Tripathi B.G. Bhai, learned counsel for the petitioners and Shri Anil Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the respondents.
2. The dispute in all the three writ petitions relates to the same plots and is between the same parties and the orders challenged in all the three writ petitions are similar, therefore, the same were connected and have been heard together and are being decided by a common order.
3. The dispute between the parties relates to Plot Nos. 48M, 49/4, 50/3 and 52M. Against the order dated 11.11.1986 passed by the Consolidation Officer, the respondents filed Appeal Nos. 08, 1014 and 1015 under Section 11(1) of the Uttar Pradesh Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as, 'Act, 1953'). All the three appeals were connected and heard together by the Settlement Officer of Consolidation, Siddharth Nagar (hereinafter referred to as, 'S.O.C.'). The grievance of the respondents in the appeals was that the aforesaid plots were their grove, and therefore, should have been chucked out from the consolidation operations and further the respondents were not allotted a chak in proportion to their share in Plot No. 48. The S.O.C. made a spot inspection and after considering the basic year records, C.H. Form 2A and C.H. Form 23 as well as different maps, in his order dated 10.10.2011 recorded a finding that Plot Nos. 49, 50 and 51 were reserved for pathway during the consolidation operations and a road runs through Plot No. 52/5 and, therefore, it would not be possible to chuck out the aforesaid plots at the instance of the respondents. In his order dated 10.10.2011, the S.O.C. also recorded a finding that Plot Nos. 49/2 and 49/3 had already been chucked out by the Consolidation Officer because they were grove and the part of Plot No. 52 which was grove had been chucked out from the consolidation operations, but the part of Plot No. 52 which was being used for agricultural purposes was included in the consolidation operations. In view of his aforesaid findings, the S.O.C. held that it would not be appropriate to chuck out Plot Nos. 49, 50 and 52 etc. from the consolidation operations. So far as Plot No. 48 was concerned, the S.O.C. in his order dated 10.10.2011 recorded a finding that the petitioners had already been allotted three chaks and any alterations in the allotment of chaks in regard to Plot No. 48 as sought by the respondents, would result in allotment of four chaks to the petitioners, which could not be done by the S.O.C. Apart from the aforesaid, in his order dated 10.10.2011 the S.O.C. also recorded a finding that notification under Section 52 of the Act, 1953 had already been issued and the parties had settled on the chaks allotted to them, therefore, the boundaries of Plot No. 48 as they existed before the delivery of possession under Section 28 of the Act, 1953 had been disturbed and, thus, it was not feasible to alter the allotment of chaks or to verify the exact area of Plot No. 48. On the aforesaid findings, the S.O.C. vide his order dated 10.10.2011 dismissed the appeals filed by the respondents.
4. Aggrieved by the order dated 10.10.2011 passed by the S.O.C., the respondents filed Revision No. 241/15-16, 242/15-16 and 433/15-16 under Section 48(1) of the Act, 1953 before the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Siddharth Nagar, i.e., respondent No. 1 (hereinafter referred to as, 'D.D.C.'), which have been allowed by the D.D.C. vide his order dated 9.8.2016 and the matter has been remanded back to the S.O.C.. to pass fresh orders in accordance with the observations made by the D.D.C. in his aforesaid order. The order dated 9.8.2016 passed in Revision No. 242/15-16 has been challenged in Writ-B No. 55583 of 2016, the order dated 9.8.2016 passed in Revision No. 241/15-16 has been challenged in Writ-B No. 60269 of 2016 and the order dated 9.8.2016 passed in Revision No. 433/15-16 has been challenged in Writ-B No. 60271 of 2016.
5. A reading of the order dated 9.8.2016 passed by the D.D.C., shows that in his aforesaid order, the D.D.C. has set aside the order dated 10.10.2011 passed by the S.O.C. on the ground that as a road passed through Plot Nos. 49, 50, 51 and 52, therefore, the said plots were liable to be chucked out from the consolidation operations. Evidently, the reasons given by the D.D.C. in his order dated 9.8.2016 have been recorded without considering the records of the case. The road referred to in the order passed by the S.O.C. were public pathway reserved under the Act, 1953, and therefore, it was not a road existing before the consolidation operations started in the village. In his order dated 10.10.2011, the S.O.C. has recorded a specific finding that the road running through Plot No. 52 was a pitch road and the road running through Plot Nos. 49, 50 and 51 etc. exists because the plots were reserved for public road under the Act, 1953. The said plots could be reserved for public road under the Act, 1953 only because they were not chucked out from the consolidation operations. Further, the order dated 9.8.2016 has been passed by the D.D.C. without meeting out the reasons given by the S.O.C. regarding the feasibility of any amendments regarding allotment of chak on Plot No. 48 as any amendment of chaks as sought by the respondents would have resulted in allotment of more than three chaks to the petitioners which could not have been done by the S.O.C. without approval of the D.D.C. and because changes had already been made in Plot No. 48 after the notification issued under Section 52 of the Act, 1953. In any case, the D.D.C. himself had the jurisdiction to make suitable alterations in accordance with law, if he found it necessary or if in the opinion of the D.D.C. the demand of the petitioners could be accepted and their grievance satisfied under law.
6. In view of the aforesaid, the orders dated 9.8.2016 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Siddharth Nagar are liable to be set aside and are hereby quashed. The matter is remanded back to the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Siddharth Nagar, i.e., respondent No. 1 to pass fresh orders in Revision Nos. 242/15-16, 242/15-16 and 433/15-16 after giving an opportunity of hearing to the concerned parties within three months from the date a certified copy of this order is produced before him. While passing any order, the D.D.C. shall also consider the feasibility of any alterations in the allotment of chaks or in declaring any plot as chucked out in light of the fact that the notification under Section 52 of the Act, 1953 had been issued long back and the tenure holders had already settled on the chaks allotted to them disturbing the boundaries of the original holdings.
7. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the writ petitions are allowed.
Order Date :- 20.8.2019/Anurag/-