Allahabad High Court
Shambhoo Dayal vs D.D.C. & Ors. on 25 August, 2021
Author: Jaspreet Singh
Bench: Jaspreet Singh
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH ?Court No. - 19 Case :- CONSOLIDATION No. - 300 of 2010 Petitioner :- Shambhoo Dayal Respondent :- D.D.C. & Ors. Counsel for Petitioner :- R.P.Lal,Mohd.Sartaj Ahmad,S.P. Singh "Somvanshi",Sanjay Kumar Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Jaspreet Singh,J.
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents. Despite service on the private respondent no.4, none has put in appearance.
By means of the office report dated 13.11.2019, it has been reported that the service on the private respondent no.4 is sufficient. It is in this view of the matter that the Court has proceeded to hear the learned counsel for the petitioner.
Under challenge is the order passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Bahraich in Revision No.516 (Shambhoo Dayal Vs. Jugradevi and other) whereby the revision of the petitioner has been dismissed.
The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that by means of order dated 23.09.2009 the Settlement Officer of Consolidation had allowed the appeal of the petitioner bearing No.347 and had granted the relief to the petitioner regarding his grievance that number of his plots were in the river bed and the proposed chak be given to him on his Mool Gata No.1182 amongst other.
It is the specific case that the petitioner who is the chak holder No.764. He has been granted the first chak comprising of Plot Nos.990, 1038, 1039, 1040, 1041 (M) and the second chak comprising of Plot Nos.1174, 1179, 1180, 1181, 1182, 1183, 1184, 1198, 1199 and 1598 whereas the third chak was allotted comprising of Plot Nos.1234, 1235, 1236, 1237, 1241 and 1242. It is also the case of the petitioner that earlier large part of the plots of the petitioner were in the riverbed and on account of aforesaid, the same was subject to submergence.
Taking note of the aforesaid as well as keeping the principle of providing a compact chak to the petitioner he was allotted Chak No.764 comprising of Gata Nos.1174, 1179, 1180 and 1181 (M) and Chak No.280 comprising of Gata Nos.990, 1038, 1039, 1040 and 1041 (M) and that it was also on his Mool Gata, the Settlement Officer of Consolidation passed the order dated 23.09.2009.
Being aggrieved against the aforesaid, two revisions came to be filed. The first revision was preferred by the respondent no.4 which was registered as Revision No.523 whereas the other revision was preferred by the petitioner and it was registered as Revision No.516. Both the revisions were consolidated and decided by a common order dated 30.12.2009. The revision of the respondent no.4 was allowed and the revision of the petitioner was dismissed. By means of the said impugned order, the chak which was given to the petitioner has been allotted to the respondent no.4 whereas what was allotted to the respondent no.4 has been allotted to the petitioner.
Assailing the aforesaid order, the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that once the Settlement Officer of Consolidation had passed the order considering the facts and circumstances also that some of the plots of the petitioner was subject to submergence being in the river bed and keeping in mind the ingredients of Section 19 of the Uttar Pradesh Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1983, the compact chak was allotted which also included the original chak of the petitioner on plot No.1182.
It is submitted that ignoring the aforesaid, the Deputy Director of Consolidation merely at the asking of the respondent no.4 has allotted the chak which was provided to the petitioner. While passing the impugned order, it has also not been noticed that what was the original number of the respondent no.4. It has been submitted that the purpose of consolidation is as far as accommodate the person on the original chak. It is also to be noticed that as far as possible the compact chak are to be allotted so that they have the facility of conducting the agricultural in a proper and effective manner.
The submission is that the respondent no.1 by passing the impugned order has neither given reason nor has noticed what was the original number of the respondent no.4 and without application of mind has interchanged the chak allotted to the petitioner with the respondent no.4.
The Court has considered the submission and also perused the material on record.
From the perusal of the impugned order contained in annexure No.3, it would indicate that while considering the revision for the respondent no.4, the Deputy Director of Consolidation has not noticed that what is the original gata number for the respondent no.4 nor has noticed that what was the original number and in lieu thereof the proposed chaks was being granted. The entire order does not contain any reason as to why the aforesaid has been done while unsettling the order of the Settlement Officer of Consolidation dated 23.09.2009 and the revision of the petitioner has been rejected while allowing the revision of respondent No.4.
It is now well settled that any Authority whether judicial or quasi judicial is required to give reasons for its order. Since the impugned order does not contain the reason which can indicate as to what prevailed in the mind of the Authority concerned while passing the impugned order and it also helps in ascertaining the validity and the reasons to demonstrate the facts considered objectively. Such objective consideration is absent in the impugned order. (see AIR 2021 SC 1918 M/s Neeharika Infrastructure Vs. State of Maharashtra). This Court is of the considered opinion that such an order cannot sustain judicial.
In this view of the matter, this Court has no option but to allow the aforesaid writ petition in part while setting aside the impugned order dated 30.12.2009 contained in Annexure no. to the writ petition which stand quashed. The matter is remanded to the Deputy Director of Consolidation to consider and decide the Revision Nos.516 and 523 afresh after affording an opportunity of hearing to the parties concerned in accordance with law.
It is also to be noted that since the matter is of the year 2009, accordingly an endeavour should be made to decide the aforesaid revision within a period of six month from the date a copy of this order is placed before the Authority concerned.
With the aforesaid, the writ petition is partly allowed. In the facts and circumstances, there shall be no order as to costs.
Order Date :- 25.8.2021 ank