Allahabad High Court
Pradeep Kumar vs State Of U.P.And 6 Others on 10 February, 2023
Author: Dinesh Pathak
Bench: Dinesh Pathak
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Court No. - 5 Case :- WRIT - B No. - 59 of 2023 Petitioner :- Pradeep Kumar Respondent :- State Of U.P.And 6 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Vindeshwari Prasad,Krishna Dev Mishra,Mahesh Kumar Dubey,Ramanuj Tripathi Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Arun Kumar Pandey,Brajesh Shukla Hon'ble Dinesh Pathak,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel representing respondent nos. 1 to 4, learned counsel for the Gaon Sabha (respondent no.2) and learned counsel for the private respondent nos. .6 and 7 at the admission stage and perused the record on board.
The grievance of the petitioner is that his Abadi exists over plot no. 459, however, same has not been allotted in the chak of the petitioner.
In the provisional consolidation scheme petitioner has been proposed chak no. 680. Perusal of C.H. Form-23 reveals that plot no. 459, which has been claimed by the petitioner, is not the original holdings of the petitioner. The Consolidation Officer, vide common order dated 12.01.2020 deciding several objections of co-villegers, has made some minor change in the chak of the petitioner. As such, he has been proposed chak over plot no. 1124 and 1125. Having been aggrieved against the order passed by the Consolidation Officer, the petitioner has preferred an appeal, which was dismissed by the Settlement Officer of Consolidation vide order dated 06.10.2022. The Deputy Director of Consolidation, on revision being filed on behalf of the petitioner, has dismissed the same vide order date 12.12.2022. Having been aggrieved against the orders passed by the all the three consolidation courts instant writ petition has been filed on behalf of the petitioner.
The claim of the petitioner, for carvation of chak over plot no. 459, has been discarded by the consolidation courts. During pendency of the appeal, the Consolidator has submitted a report dated 31.03.2022, which has properly been considered by the Settlement Officer of Consolidation in deciding the appeal. The Settlement Officer of Consolidation as well as the Deputy Director of Consolidation have returned concurrent finding of fact that plot no. 459 does not belongs to the petitioner, who is in illegal possession over there.
Considering the report of the Consolidator dated 31.03.2022, it has categorically been observed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation that on the spot certain area of plot no. 459 is surrounded by boundary wall and within boundary wall a tin-shed and cow-dung cakes exists over there. There is nothing on the record to establish that the petitioner and his family was residing over there. Even otherwise concurrent finding of fact returned by the Settlement Officer of Consolidation and the Deputy Director of Consolidation qua illegal possession of the petitioner over plot no. 459, which has been claimed by the petitioner, has not been rebutted by him in the writ petition. In dismissing the revision filed on behalf of the petitioner, the Deputy Director of Consolidation has further given observation that any change with respect to plot no. 459 will badly affect to several other chak holders which is not justifiable. It is also relevant for consideration that at initial stage, when chak no. 680 was proposed to the petitioner, he has not filed any objection claiming his carvation of chak over plot no. 459.
In this conspectus, as above, I do not find any justifiable ground to interfere in the impugned orders passed by all three consolidation courts. There is no illegality, perversity or ambiguity in the orders under challenge which may warrant indulgence of this Court in exercise of its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
As such, instant writ petition, being misconceived and devoid of merits, is dismissed with no order as to costs.
Order Date :- 10.2.2023 Pkb/