Allahabad High Court
Karm Singh And Another vs D.D.C. And 10 Ors. on 25 July, 2014
Bench: Anjani Kumar Mishra
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 18
Case :- WRIT - B No. - 35969 of 2014
Petitioner :- Karm Singh And Another
Respondent :- D.D.C. And 10 Ors.
Counsel for Petitioner :- R.A. Mishra
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Ranjeet K. Yadav
Hon'ble Anjani Kumar Mishra,J.
Heard Shri R.A. Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Ranjeet K. Yadav, who has filed caveat on behalf of respondent nos. 4 and 8.
This writ petition arises out of proceedings for allotment of chaks and is directed against the order dated 11.04.2014 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation in revision filed by the contesting respondent. By this order the revision of the contesting respondent has been allowed and the chaks has been modified.
The second order impugned is the order dated 09.06.2014. This is an order whereby a restoration application filed by the petitioner was rejected. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that by the order passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation his original holding has been excluded from the chak proposed to him. The second submission of the leaned counsel for the petitioner is that the case of the petitioner has not at all been adverted to by the Deputy Director of Consolidation while passing the impugned order. The third and most vehement submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that by the amendment made in his chak by means of the impugned order, the area of his holding has been reduced by more than 40 percent which is not permissible under law.
On the strength of these three arguments he has prayed for quashing of the impugned order.
I have perused the order dated 11.4.2014 which reveals that the revision no. 55/106 was filed by Raghuveer Singh, chak holder no. 430. It also emerges from the perusal of this order that the revision had been filed on the ground that the Boring, Pakka Room and Trees of the revisionist Raghuveer existing on plot nos. 461/3, 462/4 and 462/5 etc. had been excluded from his chak and had been proposed in the chak of the petitioner. It is for this reason that the revision no. 55/106 filed by Raghuveer Singh has been allowed. In the correction table these plots, namely, 461/3, 462/4, 463/5 and 461 etc. which are mentioned in the judgment as containing the Boring, Pakka Room and Trees of the revisionists have been excluded from the chak of the petitioner and allotted to Raghuveer.
It is, therefore, clear that the first submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner that his original holdings have been excluded from his chak by the impugned order is not correct.
As regards, the second submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that his case has not been considered, it would suffice to state that it clearly emerges from the impugned order that original plots of the contesting respondent wherein existed his constructions trees as also his private share of irrigation had been excluded from his chak and allotted to the petitioner. This illegality has been corrected by the impugned order. This is a valid and cogent reason for allowing the revision and, therefore, the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that his case has not been considered and is also not tenable.
As regards, third submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner regarding reduction of more than 40 percent in the area of his holding as a result of consolidation operation is concerned, it may be observed that there is not enough material on record to substantiate this allegation. The petitioner has not filed his CH Form 23. Moreover, learned counsel for the petitioner is not in a position to state as to what was the area of the original holding of the petitioner. In the absence of his CH Form 23 as also any categorical averment as to the area of the original holding of the petitioner, it cannot be determined as to whether or not the area of the petitioners' holding has been reduced by more than 40 percent which is beyond the permissible limit under the Act. Therefore, prima facie the third submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is also unsubstantiated.
At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner has sought time for filing copy of the CH Form 23. As a last opportunity such prayer is being granted. The petitioner will have one week time to file the CH Form 23.
It is made clear that on the next date, only point that will be considered is whether there has been reduction in the area of the holdings of the petitioner beyond the permissible limit on account of consolidation operations.
Put up as fresh on 7th August, 2014.
Order Date :- 25.7.2014
Priyanka
