Allahabad High Court
Ramesh Chand vs D.D.C. & Others on 5 July, 2016
Bench: Ram Surat (Maurya)
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 6
Case :- WRIT - B No. - 32827 of 2008
Petitioner :- Ramesh Chand
Respondent :- D.D.C. & Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- V.P. Rai
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Amulya Ratan Srivastava,Ayub Khan,Manvendra Nath Singh,Sanjay Mishra
Hon'ble Ram Surat Ram (Maurya),J.
Heard Sri V. P. Rai for the petitioner and Sri Harindra Prasad for the respondents.
The writ petition has been filed against the order of Deputy Director of Consolidation dated 21.5.2008 passed in chak allotment proceeding under UP Consolidation of Holdings Act 1953 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act').
It has been stated by the petitioner that against the proposed chak, the petitioner filed an objection under Section 20 of the Act for allotment of valuation of plot nos. 1620 and 2213 in his chak on plot no. 919. The petitioner in the objection has stated that plot no. 919 was his original holding where he has his private source of irrigation. So far as plot nos. 1620 and 2213 are concerned, they have been purchased by the petitioner through sale deed and his name was also mutated in the proceeding under Section 12 of the Act. The Consolidation Officer has allowed the objection of the petitioner by order dated 22.7.2005 and allotted valuation of plot nos. 1620 and 2213 in his chak on plot no. 919. Against the order of Consolidation Officer Smt. Darshan Devi, respondent -2 filed an appeal i.e. Appeal No. 961 of 2006. Smt. Manwati, respondent-3 also filed an appeal i.e. Appeal No. 962 of 2006. Both the appeals were heard by the Settlement Officer Consolidation who by the order dated 6.1.2007 partly allowed the appeals in which the chak of the parties were again disturbed. Smt. Darshan Devi filed revision before the Deputy Director of Consolidation. Smt. Manwati Devi also filed two revisions before the Deputy Director of Consolidation. All the three revisions were consolidated and heard by Deputy Director of Consolidation who by order dated 21.5.2008 allowed the revisions in which the chak of the petitioner has been disturbed. Hence this petition has been filed.
The main argument of the counsel for the petitioner is that by the order of Deputy Director of Consolidation multi corner chak has been carved out to the petitioners on two places which is contrary to the principle as enumerated under Section 19 (1) (e) of the Act. Thus the order of Deputy Director of Consolidation is not consonance with the principles as given under Section 19 of the Act and it is liable to be set aside.
The counsel for the respondents however submits that so far as respondent-3, Smt. Manwati is concerned, her chak has been allotted on her original holding on plot no. 922. Thus the Deputy Director of Consolidation has adjusted the equity between the parties. The original holding of respondent-3 has been illegally allotted in the chak of the petitioner.
I have considered the arguments of the counsel for the parties and examined the records.
The petitioner has also attached the chak map which has been carved out on the basis of the order of Deputy Director of Consolidation. The shape of chak of the petitioner has been shown to be multi-corner in the chak map, which has not been denied by the respondents. The Deputy Director of Consolidation while carving out the chak has totally ignored the principle under Section 19 (1) (e) of the Act.
In the results, the petition succeeds and is allowed. The order of Deputy Director of Consolidation dated 21.5.2008 is set aside. The matter is remanded to the Deputy Director of Consolidation who shall re-admit the revisions and decide them afresh after hearing the parties in accordance with law expeditiously, preferably within a period of four months from the date of producing a certified copy of this order before him.
Order Date :- 5.7.2016
Rahul /-
