Allahabad High Court
Bhagwatiya And 2 Others vs Deputy Director Of Consolidation And 16 ... on 16 March, 2023
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Court No. - 18 Case :- WRIT - B No. - 3629 of 2022 Petitioner :- Bhagwatiya And 2 Others Respondent :- Deputy Director Of Consolidation And 16 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Kunwar Janmejay Pratap Singh,Pankaj Sharma,Prashant Sharma Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Kripa Shanker Yadav,Manish Dev Hon'ble Chandra Kumar Rai,J.
Heard Mr. Kunwar Janmejay Pratap Singh, holding brief of Mr. Pankaj Sharma, Counsel for the petitioners, learned Standing Counsel for State-respondents and Mr. Manish Dev, Counsel for private respondent Nos.4 to 17.
With the consent of parties, the writ petition is being heard and disposed of finally without inviting counter affidavit.
Brief facts of the case are that petitioners No.1 is chak holder No.520 and petitioner No.2 is chak holder No.419 and petitioner No.3 is chak holder No.267. Petitioner No.1 is original tenure holder of Plot Nos.84, 202, 204, 223, 244, 341/1, 341/2 and 831 having 1/4 share. Assistant Consolidation Officer has proposed a chak to petitioner No.1 on plot Nos.831 and 832, C.H. Form 23 (1) of petitioner Nos. 1, 2 and 3 have been annexed as Annexure No.1 to the writ petition. An objection under Section 20 of U.P. C.H. Act has been filed by the tenure holders against the proposal of the Assistant Consolidation officer, no objection was filed by the petitioners as petitioners were satisfied with the proposal made by the Assistant Consolidation Officer. The Consolidation Officer decided the objection of the tenure holders. Against the order of Consolidation Officer dated 24.08.2019 petitioners being mother and sons filed an appeal before the Settlement Officer of Consolidation which was decided vide order dated 18.12.2021 granting relief in part to the petitioner. Against the appellate order several revisions under Section 48 of U.P.C.H. Act have been filed by the contesting respondents. All revisions were clubbed together and same were decided by impugned order dated 05.09.2022 resulting into disturbing the petitioners' chak specially plot No.831 which is original holding of the petitioners. Hence this writ petition.
Counsel for the petitioners submitted that petitioners are original tenure holders of plot No.831 having 1/4 share but revisional court has taken out plot No.831 without considering the case of the petitioners. He further submitted that revisoinal Court has not recorded finding for disturbing the petitioners' chak. He further submitted that comparative hardship of the petitioner has not been considered at all and the revision has been decided, which is wholly illegal.
Counsel for the petitioner placed reliance upon the provisions contained under Section 19 of U.P.C.H. Act. He further submitted that petitioners have been deprived from plot No.831 without assigning the reason in support of the order passed by the revisional court, as such impugned orders are liable to be set aside.
On the other hand Mr. Manish Dev, appearing for the contesting respondents submitted that equity has been adjusted between the tenure holder as such no interference is required. He further submitted that entire area of the plot No.831 has not been taken away from the petitioners, as such petitioner cannot assail the impugned order. He further submitted that every tenure holders canot be adjusted on their original plots. He further submitted that the writ petition is liable to be dismissed.
I have considered the advanced by the counsel for the parties and perused the record.
There is no dispute about the fact that petitioners are original tenure holders of plot no.831 having 1/4 share and the petitioners have been deprived from Plot No.831 at the revisional stage.
Since the petitioners are original tenure holder of plot No.831 and according to the petitioners their source of irrigation is situated in the same, as such interest of justice requires that revisional court should consider the revision afresh and record the finding for depriving the petitioners from their original plot no.831 having 1/4 share, otherwise, petitioners should not be disturbed.
There is no proper consideration in revisonal order in respect to the comparative hardship of the petitioner in respect to the plot in dispute and no reason has been assigned for depriving the petitioners from their original plot Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case the revisional court order dated 05.09.2022 passed by respondent No.1 in revision No.225 is liable to be set aside and the same is hereby set aside. The writ petition is allowed in part and matter is remitted back to the Deputy Director of Consolidation/ respondent No.1 to decide the revision afresh after affording opportunity of hearing to both parties expeditiously preferably within a period of three months from the date of production of certified copy of this order.
Order Date :- 16.3.2023 PS*