Allahabad High Court
Mohammad Rapheeq vs Dy. Director Of Consolidation, ... on 15 March, 2011
Bench: Amreshwar Pratap Sahi
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Court No. 5
Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 7923 of 2011
Mohd. Rapheeq
Versus
The Dy. Director of Consolidation, Siddharth Nagar and others.
Hon'ble A.P. Sahi,J.
The petitioner aggrieved by the order of the Deputy Director of Consolidation and the Settlement Officer Consolidation dated 16.12.2010 and 20.8.2009 respectively has come up before this court praying for quashing of the said orders and for maintaining the allotment to the petitioner over Plot No. 566/1 relating to Village Madhwapur Kalan, Tehsil Etwa, District Siddharth Nagar.
The facts giving rise to this controversy are that Plot No. 566/1 is the recorded original holding of the respondent no. 3 which is stated to have an area of about 12 ares. Out of the said area the petitioner contends that he constructed a house with the consent of the respondent no. 3 over approximately 4 ares. The consolidation operations intervened and the plot was valued at 30 paise, against which it is stated that no objections were filed by the respondent no. 3. The objections are required to be filed under Section 9 of the Act, and in the event no such objection is filed, then no claim in relation to valuation, etc. can be set up in view of the bar contained in Section 11-A of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953. Learned counsel for the petitioner Sri T.S. Shukla relying on the judgment in the case of Surya Bali Vs. Dy. Director of Consolidation and others, 2006 (100) RD 471 contends that no alteration can be made at the stage of chak disputes or the revisional stage if the tenure-holder has failed to file any objections.
As a result of the valuation of the plot, there was an exchange of holdings under the scheme. The balance area of Plot No. 566/1, apart from the constructed area, came to be allotted in the chak of the petitioner. The allotment proceedings are followed by objections and the respondent no. 3 appears to have filed an objection under Section 20 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 which was rejected by the Consolidation Officer on 18th February, 2009. Aggrieved, the respondent no. 3 filed an appeal.
The Settlement Officer Consolidation while allowing the appeal found that the plot was the original holding of the respondent no. 3 which fact remains undisputed. The Settlement Officer Consolidation however went a step further by making a spot inspection and holding that the balance area of Plot No. 566/1 is within an inhabited locality and therefore it should be kept out of the consolidation operations and accordingly declared it to be chak out. This resulted in the restoration of the original holding of the respondent no. 3.
A revision was filed by the petitioner on the ground that the Settlement Officer Consolidation in appeal could not have altered or varied the settlement operations and the declaration that the land should be kept out of consolidation operations was without jurisdiction. It was also urged on the basis of the law relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner herein that once the valuation has been made and had become final without any objection then the allotment cannot be said to be invalid in favour of the petitioner.
The Deputy Director of Consolidation in revision also made a spot inspection and affirmed the order of the Settlement Officer Consolidation. Aggrieved, the petitioner has approached this Court assailing the said order in the light of the judgment relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner.
Learned counsel for the contesting respondents submits that the fact that Plot No. 566/1 is the original holding of the respondent no. 3 is admitted to the petitioner and which has also been stated in Paragraph 4 of the writ petition. He therefore submits that the original holding of the petitioner being surrounded in an area of habitation ought to have been included for allotment in favour of the respondent no. 3 and therefore the order of the Settlement Officer Consolidation in appeal and the revisional order does not suffer from any infirmity. He therefore contends that the writ petition be dismissed.
Having considered the rival submissions, it is evident that technically the law is that if no objections have been filed against the valuation of plots under Section 9 then the bar of Section 11-A would operate and in subsequent chak allotment proceedings the authorities cannot pass an order for keeping the land outside consolidation operations, inasmuch as, the same virtually amounts to setting aside the orders of valuation of plots and excluding them from the consolidation scheme.
In the instant case, even assuming that the aforesaid technical objection of the petitioner is correct, then the issue still remains that the plot having been valued, can still be allotted to the respondent. The situation of the plot clearly indicates that it is within the vicinity of human habitation and therefore is of much value to the respondent no. 3. A spot inspection was carried out by the Settlement Officer Consolidation and the Deputy Director of Consolidation, whereafter they upheld the claim of the respondent no. 3. This in the opinion of the Court was equitable, inasmuch as, the petitioner having acquired part of the property as alleged by him appears to have got the entire area allocated in his chak thereby depriving the respondent no. 3 of his original holding. The petitioner's intention was, therefore, clearly to acquire the entire plot which was close to the vicinity of the village and which was of much value to the respondent no. 3.
In the opinion of the Court, substantial justice has been done in the matter of allotment and the bar of Section 11-A does not come in the way of the respondent no. 3 at all. The argument on behalf of the petitioner is therefore misplaced as even otherwise the respondent no. 3 after valuation was entitled to be allotted the said land as it was his original holding.
The writ petition lacks merit and is accordingly dismissed.
Dt. 15.3.2011.
Sahu
