Allahabad High Court
Raisa Begum vs D.D.C. And Others on 30 November, 2011
Bench: Amreshwar Pratap Sahi
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?AFR
Court No. - 5
Case :- WRIT - B No. - 68790 of 2011
Petitioner :- Raisa Begum
Respondent :- D.D.C. And Others
Petitioner Counsel :- Brajesh Shukla
Respondent Counsel :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Amreshwar Pratap Sahi,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner Sri Brajesh Shukla and Sri P.K. Sinha for the respondent no. 4 Balbir Singh. It is not necessary to issue notice to the respondent nos. 5 to 8 keeping in view the nature of the dispute which is entirely between these two persons. Learned Standing Counsel has been heard for the respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3.
The dispute relates to allotment of Plot No. 1434/1. C.H. Form 23 has been filed indicating that the same is the original holding of the petitioner. The location of the said plot has been explained with the aid of a revenue map appended as annexure 8 which demonstrates that the land is just adjacent to a link road and is facing the National Highway. This plot of land which is the original holding of the petitioner has now been allotted to the respondent no. 4 Balbir singh.
The contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that no reasons have been recorded for carrying out this alteration by the authorities. Even otherwise the order of the Deputy Director of Consolidation erroneously records that if the revision preferred by the petitioner is allowed, other tenure holders would be affected. Sri Shukla submits that this finding is without any basis, inasmuch as, no tenure holder would be affected nor any reduction in the area of any tenure holder would be brought about. He submits that there is nothing on record to indicate any such reduction.
Sri P.K. Sinha learned counsel for the respondent no. 4 submits that the matter can be remitted for an examination of the aforesaid issues raised by the petitioner and therefore the Deputy Director of Consolidation can be called upon to redetermine the issues.
I have considered the submissions raised and perused the impugned orders. C.H. Form 23 of the respondent has also been brought on record. The original holding of the respondent is over plot No. 1528 and 1529. He appears to have purchased the land during consolidation proceedings itself and mutation has been carried out. In such a situation the case of respondent no. 4 cannot be equated with that of the petitioner for the purpose of allocation of chak more so when the plot no. 1434/1 is the original holding of the petitioner and is a roadside land. Sri Sinha has been unable to support the impugned order on any cogent material for attempting to dislodge the petitioner from his original roadside holding. The petitioner cannot be deprived of his valuable land for no valid reason. No other tenure holder has been affected at all and the excuse of reduction in area of other tenure holders is absolutely imaginary without details.
Accordingly, I do not find it fit to even remit the matter as the records which are there and available in the writ petition could not be disputed by either of the parties.
There is therefore no justification in sustaining the undisputed orders to the detriment of the petitioner. The order passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation dated 20.8.2011 affirming the appellate order dated 17.6.2010 and the order of the Consolidation Officer dated 30.4.2008 is hereby quashed. The original holding of the petitioner over plot no. 1431/1 is restored.
The writ petition is allowed.
Order Date :- 30.11.2011
Sahu
