Allahabad High Court
Lallu Singh vs Deputy Director Of Consolidation And 4 ... on 6 September, 2024
Author: Dinesh Pathak
Bench: Dinesh Pathak
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:145775 Judgment reserved on 31.8.2024 Judgment delivered on 06.9.2024 Court No. - 49 Case :- WRIT - B No. - 2625 of 2024 Petitioner :- Lallu Singh Respondent :- Deputy Director Of Consolidation And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Hriday Narayan Pandey,Premshankar Shukla Counsel for Respondent :- Ashok Kumar Singh,C.S.C.,Ram Mangal Singh,Satendra Kumar Singh Hon'ble Dinesh Pathak,J.
1. Supplementary affidavit filed by the learned counsel for the petitioner is taken on record. Office is directed to proceed accordingly.
2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the respondent no.2 and learned standing counsel for the State respondents.
3. Aggrieved with the order dated 28.5.2024 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation (in brevity 'DDC') in a revision arising out of proceedings under Section 21 (1) of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (in brevity 'UPCH Act'), the petitioner has filed the instant writ petition.
4. Facts culled out from the record are that in the provisional consolidation scheme, the present petitioner (Lallu Singh) has been proposed chak No.1099 at three places; the first chak consisting of plot nos.199, 200, 201 and 202 etc., the second chak has been proposed over plot nos.602, 603 and 604 etc.; and the third chak has been proposed over plot nos.351 and 352 totalling 15 plots measuring area 2.151 hectares. Likewise Krishna Autar Sharma (respondent No.2) has been proposed chak No.108 at two places; the first chak at plot nos.262/1, 262/2, 263 etc. and the second chak on plot no.766, totaling 6 plots measuring area 1.165 hectares. Likewise, Maya Devi (respondent no.3) has been proposed chak no.815 and Nemwati (respondent no.4) has been proposed chak no.2. Plot No. 200 measuring area 0.530 hectares is original holding of petitioner to the extent of half (1/2) share and plot no. 201 measuring area 0.396 hectares is the original holding of respondent no. 2 to the extent of his 1/6 share. Assistant Consolidation Officer has not allotted chak to the respondent no. 2 over his original holding No. 201, however, substantial area of plot no. 201 has been allotted in the chak of petitioner. In chak allotment proceedings, the Consolidation Officer (in brevity 'CO'), vide order dated 11.11.2021, has further disturbed the chak of respondent no.2, whereby petitioner has been allotted additional area measuring 0.119 hectares over plot no. 201. In the meantime, a common order dated 4.11.2021 has been passed by the CO on several objections filed on behalf of the villagers. Having been aggrieved with the orders dated 4.11.2021 and 11.11.2021 passed by the CO, respondent no.2 has preferred two separate appeals being Appeal No.528 filed against order dated 4.11.2021 and Appeal No.607 filed against the order dated 11.11.2021. The Settlement Officer of Consolidation (in brevity 'SOC'), vide separate orders dated 12.9.2022, has dismissed both the appeals. Having been aggrieved with the order passed by the SOC, respondent no.2 has preferred two revisions, the first revision being Revision no.471/202254137400001754 has been preferred against the order dated 12.9.2022 passed in Appeal No.528, and the second revision being Revision no.473/202254137400001756 has been preferred against the order dated 12.9.2022 passed in Appeal No.607. The DDC, vide common order dated 28.5.2024, has dismissed the Revision no.471/202254137400001754, however, allowed the Revision no.473/002254137400001756, whereby chak of petitioner alongwith chak of the respondents have been modified, which is under challenge before this court.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner, while assailing the order impugned passed by the DDC, has advanced two fold submissions; first, that the petitioner has been displaced from plot no.200, which is his original holdings; and second, that his source of irrigation and the mausoleum of his brother have been taken out from the chak of the petitioner and given in the chak of the contesting respondent no.2.
6. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent no.2 has vehemently opposed the submissions as advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner and contended that a significant area of plot no.200 is still in the possession of the petitioner. It is next contended that the source of irrigation and mausoleum belonging to the petitioner, if any, have not been accorded in the chak of the contesting respondent no.2, and he has no concern with the aforesaid portion of plot no.200 where source of irrigation and mausoleum of the petitioner is existing.
7. Having considered the rival submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perusal of record, it is manifest that a substantial area of plot no.201, which is the original holding of the contesting respondent no.2, has been allotted in the chak of the petitioner. The DDC, having considered the grievance of the respondent no.2, has modified the chak of the petitioner as well as other private respondents. So far as the first submission advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner that he has been displaced from his original plot no.200 is concerned, the record evince that the petitioner is entitled to the extent of half share (1/2) in plot no.200 measuring area 0.530 hectares. However, at the stage of Assistant Consolidation Officer, the petitioner has been allotted the first chak including plot no.200 M measuring area 0.529 hectares, after required deduction. The CO, vide order dated 11.11.2021, has taken out measuring area 0.222 hectares of plot no.200 from the chak of the petitioner and allotted said area in the chak of respondent no. 3 (chak holder no. 815). Therefore, measuring area 0.307 hectares remains with the petitioner. At the stage of DDC, measuring area 0.091 hectares and 0.109 hectares, totaling area 0.200 hectares of plot no.200 has been taken out from the chak of petitioner. Consequently, measuring area 0.107 hectares of plot no.200 remains in the chak of the petitioner. Thus, it cannot be said that the petitioner has totally been dislodged from his original holdings i.e. plot no.200. The DDC, in order to observe complete justice between the parties, has slightly modified the chak of the petitioner as well as other private respondents. He has given categorical findings that, including the valuation of plot no.200, total area having valuation of Rs.34.68 paisa has been taken out from chak holder no.1099 (petitioner) and, in its place, equal valuation of area has been allotted in the chak of the petitioner over plot no.265, etc. It is apposite to mention that plot no.265 is the original holding of the petitioner as well. The DDC has taken into account the initial disturbance caused in the chak of the respondent no.2, whereby his source of irrigation existing towards the southern side of plot no.201 has been taken out from his chak, and the potential value of plot no.201 situated abutting the road. Therefore, measuring area 0.128 hectares of plot no.201 has been taken out from the chak of the petitioner and allotted in the chak of the respondent no.2. The DDC has pointed out as well that the petitioner has been allotted chak having area of more valuation than that of he originally held over plot no.200 etc. in the same sector. Therefore, in order to make balance between the valuation originally held and allotted to the petitioner, the DDC has proposed minor changes in the chak of the petitioner over plot no.200 etc. The modification made by the DDC in the chak of the petitioner does not substantially affect the area of the petitioner over plot no.200. He is still in possession over the remaining area of plot no.200. Thus, I do not find any merit in the first submission advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner.
8. I am skeptical of the second submission advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner qua dislodging the petitioner from the particular area of plot no.200 where his source of irrigation and mausoleum of his family exist. There is nothing on the record to demonstrate that the particular portion of plot no.200, where his source of irrigation and mausoleum are existing, has been taken out from the chak of the petitioner and the same area has been allotted in the chak of the contesting respondents. It is apposite to mention that the DDC has taken out area of plot no.200 from the chak of the petitioner in two parts; one measuring area 0.091 hectares and the second measuring area 0.109 hectares. Out of that, area 0.091 hectares has been allotted in the chak of the respondent no.2 (chak holder no.108) and measuring area 0.109 hectares of plot no.200 has been allotted in the chak of Smt. Maya Devi (chak holder No.815). There is no specific case of the petitioner as to whom his source of irrigation and mausoleum have been allotted. Despite time granted to the learned counsel for the petitioner, no convincing document has been adduced before the court to substantiate his submission qua taking out the source of irrigation and mausoleum from the chak of the petitioner. The DDC, prima faice, has tried to do complete justice between the chak holders and, in my considered opinion, no party can be said to be adversely effected owing to the order passed by the DDC.
9. In this conspectus, as above, I do not find any justifiable ground to entertain the instant writ petition and interfere in the order dated 28.5.2024 passed by the DDC. There is no illegality, perversity or infirmity in the order impugned passed by all the three consolidation courts so as to warrant the indulgence of this court in exercise of its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. There is nothing on the record to demonstrate as to how the present petitioner is prejudiced, or if there is any likelihood of causing a miscarriage of justice to him, owing to the order under challenge.
10. Resultantly, the instant writ petition, being misconceived and devoid of merits, is dismissed with no orders as to the costs.
Order Date :- 06.9.2024/vkg