Allahabad High Court
Hafeez Ahmad vs Deputy Director Of Consolidation on 30 January, 2024
Author: Dinesh Pathak
Bench: Dinesh Pathak
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:14606 Court No. - 48 Case :- WRIT - B No. - 211 of 2024 Petitioner :- Hafeez Ahmad Respondent :- Deputy Director Of Consolidation Counsel for Petitioner :- Shivajee Singh Sisodiya Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Sher Bahadur Singh Hon'ble Dinesh Pathak,J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for respondents no.1 to 3 and learned counsel for Gaon Sabha-respondent no.9.
2. Instant writ petition is arising out of chak allotment proceeding. During provisional consolidation, Wahid Ullah (father of the present petitioner) has been proposed chak no.342. However, Dhruv Singh (respondent no.5) has been proposed chak no.244 and his wife Sushila Devi (respondent no.4) has been proposed chak no.639. Having been aggrieved with her proposed chak, respondent no.4 (chak holder no.639) has filed objection under Section 20 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act (in brevity ?U.P.C.H. Act?) beseeching carvation of her chak over plot no.140/1 abutting the road, according to her possession over there. The Consolidation Officer has rejected the objection, vide order dated 17.08.2021, on the ground that previously, vide order dated 09.04.2021, aforesaid plot has already been modified/affected. Having been aggrieved, respondents no.4 and 5 have preferred two separate appeal against the order dated 09.04.2021 which was passed in objection, being Case No.244 of 2020/21, filed on behalf of Babli (respondent no.6). The Settlement Officer of Consolidation (in brevity ?S.O.C.?) has partly allowed both the appeals and, accordingly, modified the positioning of chak holders over plot no.140/1. The Deputy Director of Consolidation (in brevity ?D.D.C.?), on revision being filed on behalf of the present petitioner, has dismissed the revision. It is apposite to mention that respondents no. 4 and 5 had also preferred revision claiming their larger share over plot no.140/1. By the common order passed by the D.D.C., their revisions were dismissed as well. The petitioner, having been aggrieved with the dismissal of revision, has filed the instant writ petition.
3. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that plot no.140/1 is the original holding of the petitioner and according to his share he had been proposed first chak over plot no.140/1 measuring area 0.284 hectare. However, the Settlement Officer of Consolidation has illegaly taken out area 0.021 hectare from the aforesaid proposed plot i.e. plot no.140/1. It is further submitted that the aforesaid deducted area is road side land, therefore, he has illegally been deprived of the said land and he has illegally been shifted towards the back side over the portion which basically belonged to respondent no.4. It is further submitted that order dated 17.08.2021 passed by the Consolidation Officer, rejecting the objection filed by respondent no.4, has not been challenged, thus, she has no right to claim area over plot no.140/1.
4. Per contra, learned counsel for Gaon Sabha and learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents have vehemently opposed the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner and contended that no injustice would be caused to the petitioner owning to modification of his chak over plot no.140/1. It is further contended that the S.O.C. has simply accorded chak road to respondents no.4 and 5 from which they were previously deprived of. Lastly it is contended that the instant writ petition, being devoid on merits, is liable to be dismissed.
5. Having considered the rival submissions advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel as well as learned counsel for the Gaon Sabha and perusal of record on Board, it is manifested that the petitioner, respondent no.4 and respondent no.5 are co-sharers of plot no.140/1. In provisional consolidation scheme, all the aforesaid three co-sharers have been proposed chak over plot no.140/1. The S.O.C. has accorded chak road to respondents no.4 and 5 over plot no.140/1 measuring area 0.021 hectare, the partial area taken from the chak of the present petitioner, and in lieu thereof petitioner has been compensated on the aforesaid plot over the area taken from chak of respondent no.4. While dismissing the revision, the D.D.C. has returned categorical finding that chak road has been provided to the chak holders no.639 and 244 towards north-west and it would be unjustified to deprive them of from the chak road. So far as the submissions raised by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has been deprived of his road side land is concerned, I found nothing on the record that the petitioner has totally been displaced from the area of plot no.140/1 abutting the road. Even ratio of area between the co-sharers and that proportionate area of the petitioner abutting the road, for which he has allegedly been deprived of, is not mentioned in the writ petition. There is nothing on the record to establish that the petitioner has been substantially or totally displaced from the road side area over plot no.140/1. Area which has been taken out from the chak of the present petitioner has been allocated for the chak marg to provide approach road to respondents no.4 and 5.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further emphasized that original objection filed by respondent no.4 was rejected vide order dated 17.08.2021, however, same has not been assailed before any court competent, thus, the said order became final between the parties. Perusal of order dated 17.08.2021 reveals that objection filed by the petitioner has been rejected on the ground that plot no.140/1 was already modified by the order dated 09.04.2021. In this backdrop of the facts, in my considered opinion, respondent no.2 has rightly challenged the order dated 09.04.2021 passed by the Consolidation Officer on objection filed by respondent no.6. In consolidation proceedings, legislation is intended to provide chak road to all the tenure holders (chak holders) for better arrangement of holdings between them in order to development of agriculture. Therefore, the S.O.C. and the D.D.C. has rightly provided chak to respondents no.4 and 5 over partial area of plot no.140/1 which was initially in the chak of the petitioner. In lieu of the area taken from the chak of the petitioner, he has been adjusted over the same plot i.e. plot no.140/1, therefore, only positioning of the chak of the petitioner has slightly been changed over plot no.140/1. He has not been displaced from his original holding. In the consolidation operation, it is not feasible to allot entire area to the concerned tenure holder which was initially in his possession, therefore, while consolidating the holdings for development of agriculture, there is always a possibility of change in the area/situation/position of original tenure holders. Even otherwise, under the U.P.C.H. Act, variation upto 25% is permissible.
7. In this conspectus as above, there is no illegality, perversity or infirmity in the order under challenge. There is nothing on record to demonstrate as to how the petitioner is prejudiced, or if there is any likelihood of causing miscarriage of justice to him, owning to order impugned.
8. Resultantly, instant writ petition, being misconceived and devoid on merits, is dismissed with no order as to costs.
Order Date :- 30.1.2024 VR