Allahabad High Court
Ram Nath vs D.D.C.Amethi & Ors. on 8 August, 2019
Author: Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya
Bench: Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH ?Court No. - 5 Case :- CONSOLIDATION No. - 21767 of 2019 Petitioner :- Ram Nath Respondent :- D.D.C.Amethi & Ors. Counsel for Petitioner :- Vidya Bhushan Pandey Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel representing the State-respondents.
This petition challenges the orders passed by the Consolidation Officer, Settlement Officer, Consolidation and the Deputy Director of Consolidation respectively in a proceedings drawn under U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act for carvation of chaks under Section 20/21 of the said Act.
From a perusal of the orders passed by the consolidation courts/authorities which are under challenge herein, what can be gathered is that the petitioner has demanded abolition of his fourth chak carved out of khasra plot no.259 and in lieu thereof, he has prayed that new chak be carved out comprising of area of khasra plot nos.15 and 153 which are his original holding.
The Consolidation Officer vide his order dated 26.04.2018 decided the objection filed by the respective parties and accordingly on the basis of compromise carved out chaks, however the petitioner feeling aggrieved by the said order filed appeal under Section 21 (2) of the Act along with other tenure holders namely, Hari Prasad and Vijay Kumar. The Settlement Officer, Consolidation partly allowed the appeals and chaks of the appellants were accordingly adjusted. The petitioner was still not satisfied with the chak allocation made by the Settlement Officer, Consolidation vide his order dated 05.06.2018 and accordingly he filed revision petition which has been dismissed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation vide his order dated 05.01.2019.
Submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the order passed by the Consolidation Officer was based on compromise to which he was never a party and as such any order based on such a compromise is not sustainable.
Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record available on this petition, what I find is that even if the petitioner had not entered into compromise on the basis of which the Consolidation Officer said to have passed the order, the Settlement Officer, Consolidation has adjusted the chaks of the tenure holders equitably. In fact, the order of the Settlement Officer, Consolidation is based on proportionate shares of the tenure holders in their original holdings. The Deputy Director of Consolidation while dismissing the revision petition filed by the petitioner has observed that so far as the demand of the petitioner for abolition of his chak comprised in khasra plot no.259 and carvation of chaks comprised of khasra plot nos.15 and 153 is concerned, the petitioner has already been given valuation of 5.71 paise and 9.37 paise on khasra plot nos.15 and 153 respectively whereas his shares in the said plots are 7.00 paise and 11.24 paise. Since the petitioner has thus been given almost entire valuation of his share in khasra plot nos.15 and 153, I do not find any illegality in the orders passed by the courts below.
If every individual tenure holder is given a chak on entire valuation of his original holding, it will become very difficult for the consolidation authorities to undertake consolidation operations which in fact will frustrate the very purpose of the proceedings for consolidation of small holdings. Even otherwise, the petitioner has not been able to point out any violation of principle as enunciated under Section 19 of U.P. Consolidation of Holding Act.
For the aforesaid reasons, I do not find it a case fit for interference by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
The petition is thus dismissed.
Order Date :- 8.8.2019 Renu/-