Allahabad High Court
Kali Deen vs Deputy Director Of Consolidation ... on 11 December, 2013
Bench: Sibghat Ullah Khan
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
(Judgment reserved on 24.9.2013)
(Judgment delivered on 11.12.2013)
Court No. - 21
Case :- CONSOLIDATION No. - 545 of 2013
Petitioner :- Kali Deen
Respondent :- Deputy Director Of Consolidation Faizabad And Ors.
Counsel for Petitioner :- Mohd.Aslam Khan
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C,S.N.Goswami,Surya Prakash Singh
Hon'ble Sibghat Ullah Khan,J.
Heard Shri M.A. Khan, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri S.N. Goswami, learned counsel for contesting respondents no. 4 and 5. Petitioner and respondent no. 4 and 5 are real brothers.
This writ petition arises out of the consolidation proceedings and pertains to chak matter. All the three courts below have decided the matter against the petitioner.
Consolidation Officer Harrintonganj passed the order on 28.4.2011 in case no.204, 222, 102 and 216. Against the said order petitioner filed appeal no.549/154. S.O.C. Faizabad dismissed the appeal on 04.01.2013. Against the said order petitioner filed revision no.1003 which was dismissed by D.D.C. Faizabad on 14.8.2013 Learned counsel for the petitioner on the date of arguments filed supplementary-affidavit annexing therewith the map.
The main argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner in this writ petition was that plot no. 268 is adjacent to the road; all the three brothers had equal share in the said plot but opposite parties no. 4 and 5 had been given 0.100 hectare each in the said plot, however, petitioner had been given only 0.041 hectare therein.
All the three brothers held only a small share in the said plot which is quite big. It has not been shown that either petitioner or his brothers have been given land in the said plot adjacent to the road or away from the road.
However, this point was not raised before the courts below. In the order of the C.O. it is mentioned that the petitioner had raised grievance in respect of plot no.386, 301 etc and claimed chak on the basis of mutual partition. It is mentioned in the judgment of the appellate court/S.O.C. that the grievance raised by the petitioner was that the chak which had been granted to him over plot no. 235 area 0.182 was quite away fom his residence and as appellant was having his house and Sahan adjacent to plot no. 418, hence, he must be given chak there and in plot no.418 chak had wrongly been given to his brothers, i.e., O.P. No. 4 and 5. It is also noted that his specific demand was that his chak at plot no. 235 must be abolished and he must be given chak over plot no. 389, 386 and 268 and 418. No grievance regarding roadside land was made before the appellate court. S.O.C. held that plot no. 418 belonged to others and petitioner had been granted chak over his original holding. The total area allotted to the petitioner was 0.270 hectare. Before the lower revisional court also no such grievance was made that plot no.268 being roadside land appellant should be granted in the said plot also land as he had share therein. The grievance raised was that he must be given chak on plot no.389, 386 and 286 as it was near his boaring and engine and he must also be given chak on plot no.418 which is near his house. The D.D.C. further held that opposite parties no. 4 and 5 had been given chak in accordance with the compromise/ settlement in between them and tenure-holders of those plots which had been given to them. Plot no. 386 and 389 were not original holdings of the petitioner and respondent no. 4 and 5. They were given to respondent no. 4 and 5 under agreement with original tenure holder of the said plots, hence, petitioner was not entitled to have chak over plot no. 386 and 389.
However, the fact remains that plot No.235 belonged to all the three brothers and it was away from their residence. If only petitioner was given chak over the said plot, then opposite parties No.4 & 5 would have been required to compensate him. Accordingly, impugned orders are modified and it is directed that respondents No.4 & 5 shall pay Rs.15,000/- as compensation to the petitioner. They are directed to deposit a draft of Rs.15,000/- drawn in the name of the petitioner before D.D.C. within one month for immediate payment to the petitioner. Until deposit of aforesaid draft, impugned orders shall remain in abeyance. They shall come into force after deposit of the same.
Writ Petition is accordingly disposed of.
Order date : - 11.12.2013.
mks
