Allahabad High Court
Shish Pal vs Deputy Director Of Consolidation And 15 ... on 7 April, 2025
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:49966 Court No. - 50 Case :- WRIT - B No. - 2366 of 2023 Petitioner :- Shish Pal Respondent :- Deputy Director Of Consolidation And 15 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Anand Kumar Srivastava,Mayank Awasthi,Moeez Uddin Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Santosh Kumar Tiwari Hon'ble Chandra Kumar Rai,J.
1. Heard Mr. Moeez Uddin, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Santosh Kumar Tiwari, learned counsel for respondent no.3 and Mr. Pankaj Kumar, learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner is chak holder no.1604 and respondent no.3 is chak holder no.949. Plot no.672 area 0.683 is the original holding of the petitioner along with several other plots but plot no.672 is the largest original holding of the petitioner. Petitioner was proposed single chak by the Assistant Consolidation Officer including the original plot no.672 against the proposal of the Assistant Consolidation Officer. Chak objections were filed by the co-tenure holder. Consolidation Officer vide order dated 30.12.2020 modified the chak of the petitioner. Petitioner was satisfied with the change / modification made by the Consolidation Officer. Against the order of Consolidation Officer dated 30.12.2020, one appeal was filed by respondent no.3/ Babita, under Section 21 (2) of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as "U.P.C.H. Act"), which was registered as Appeal No.1223 of 2022 before Settlement Officer of Consolidation claiming allotment of chak on her original plot nos.593 and 674 in which her source of irrigation was situated. Settlement Officer of Consolidation vide order dated 2.1.2023 allowed the appeal filed by respondent no.3 and affected the petitioner's chak taking out his largest original plot no.672. Against the appellate order dated 2.1.2023 petitioner filed revision under Section 48 of U.P.C.H. Act which was registered as Revision No.0023 of 2023. Five other revision were also filed which were clubbed and heard along with petitioner's revision. Deputy Director of Consolidation dismissed the petitioner's revision under the impugned order dated 9.6.2023, hence this writ petition for the following reliefs:
"i. issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated 9.6.2023 passed by respondent no.1 in revision no.23 of 2023 (Shish Pal vs. Babita and other) and also order dated 2.1.2023 passed by respondent no.2 in appeal no.1223 of 2022 (Babita vs. Heera Lal and others).
ii. issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents not to dispossess to the petitioner from the chak allotted to him at the stage of Consolidation Officer."
3. This Court vide order dated 4.8.2023 directed the parties to exchange the pleading in the matter. In pursuance of the order dated 4.8.2023, learned counsel for respondent no.3 has filed the counter affidavit and petitioner has filed rejoinder affidavit in the matter.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the plot no.672 is the largest holding of the petitioner in which his source of irrigation is situated. He further submitted that the Assistant Consolidation Officer has proposed the chak to the petitioner on his largest holding (plot no.672) in which his source of irrigation is situated which was maintained up to consolidation stage. He further submitted that in appeal respondent no.3 was claiming allotment on her original holding i.e. plot no.674 etc. but while deciding the chak appeal, plot no.672 belonging to petitioner has been taken out from the chak of the petitioner in which the petitioner's source of irrigation was situated. He further submitted that the petitioner has filed revision taking specific ground that petitioner cannot be deprived from his largest original holding in which his source of irrigation is situated but the revision filed by the petitioner has been dismissed without considering the case in proper manner. He further submitted that in view of the provisions contained under Section 19 of U.P.C.H. Act, the petitioner cannot be deprived from his largest part of holding in which his source of irrigation is also situated. He further submitted that the impugned appellate order as well as revisional order should be set aside and stage of Consolidation Officer should be maintained.
5. Mr. Santosh Kumar Tiwari, learned counsel for respondent no.3 submitted that no interference is required against the order passed in the chak allotment proceeding. He further submitted that Settlement Officer of Consolidation and Deputy Director of Consolidation has decided the appeal and revision considering the points involved in appeal as well as revision. He further submitted that plot no.674 is the original holding of respondent no.3 in which her source of irrigation is situated, as such, respondent no.3 has been adjusted on plot no.674 along with plot no.672 which is proper exercise of appellate jurisdiction and the same has been rightly maintained in revision. He submitted that no interference is required against the impugned order passed in allotment of chak proceeding.
6. I have considered the argument advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perused the records.
7. There is no dispute about the fact that the plot no.672 is the largest original holding of the petitioner and respondent no.3 has no share in the aforementioned plot in any manner. There is also no dispute about the fact that plot nos.593 & 674 are original holdings of respondent no.3. There is also no dispute about the fact that Assistant Consolidation Officer has proposed the single chak to the petitioner including the area of largest holding i.e. plot no.672, which was maintained up to Consolidation Officer stage with certain modifications. There is also no dispute about the fact that in appeal the chak of the petitioner as well as respondent no.3 has been changed and the order has been maintained in revision.
8. In order to appreciate the controversy involved in the matter, perusal of Section 19-1 (e) and (f) of U.P.C.H. Act will be relevant, which are as under:
"19 Conditions to be fullfilled by a Consolidation Scheme.
............
1 (e) every tenure holder is, as far as possible, allotted a compact area at the place where he holds the larges 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 vicinity equal to the valuation of the plots originally held by him there, and
9. Perusal of the C.H. Forms-23 of the petitioner as well as respondent no.3 which are annexed as Annexure no.1 to the writ petition demonstrates that the plot no.672 is the largest holding of the petitioner and plot no.672 is the original holding of respondent no.3. Perusal of the aforementioned documents further demonstrate that petitioner was proposed a single chak including the plot no.672 and respondent no.3 was proposed single chak on plot nos.540M, 554 & 555. Settlement Officer of Consolidation while deciding the appeal filed by respondent no.3 who is not claiming chak on plot no.672 has taken out the chak allotted to the petitioner on plot no.672 and allotted the same in the chak of respondent no.3. The exercise of jurisdiction by the appellate Court was not in accordance with the provisions contained under Section 19 of U.P.C.H. Act.
10. Deputy Director of Consolidation has not considered the petitioner's grievance in proper manner as raised before him under Section 48 of U.P.C.H. Act, as such, the impugned revisional order cannot be sustained in the eye of law.
11. The crux of the matter is that plot no.672 is the largest original holding of the petitioner and plot no.674 is the original holding of respondent no.3, as such, interest of justice requires that the petitioner should be adjusted on his largest original plot no.672 and the respondent no.3 should be adjusted on her original plot no.674.
12. Considering the entire facts and circumstances, the impugned appellate order dated 9.6.2023 passed by respondent no.1/ Deputy Director of Consolidation in Revision No.0023 of 2023 and 2.1.2023 passed by respondent no.2/ Settlement Officer of Consolidation are liable to be set aside and the same are hereby set aside but the matter should be remanded back before revisional Court in place of appellate Court for fresh adjudication of Revision No.0023 of 2023 in accordance with law.
13. The writ petition stands allowed and the matter is remitted back before Deputy Director of Consolidation/ respondent no.1 to register the revision no. 0023 of 2023 on its original number and decide the same afresh after affording opportunity of hearing to the parties considering the point relating to allotment of plot no.672 in the chak of petitioner and plot no.674 in the chak of respondent no.3 according to their share in their respective plot in proper manner expeditiously preferably within a period of three months from the date of production of certified copy of this order before him.
Order Date :- 7.4.2025 Rameez