Allahabad High Court
Subedar Singh vs D.D.C./Chief Revenue Officer, ... on 19 October, 2016
Bench: Manoj Kumar Gupta
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
A.F.R.
Court No. - 6
Case :- WRIT - B No. - 48396 of 2016
Petitioner :- Subedar Singh
Respondent :- D.D.C./Chief Revenue Officer, Ghazipur And 2 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Ashok Kumar
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Dinesh Pathak
Hon'ble Manoj Kumar Gupta,J.
1. Supplementary affidavit filed today is taken on record.
2. Heard counsel for the petitioner and Sri Dinesh Pathak for the third respondent.
3. The writ petition is directed against the order dated 10.7.2015 passed by Settlement Officer, Consolidation, Ghazipur, by which the appeal filed by the petitioner challenging the proposal made by Assistant Consolidation Officer regarding allotment of chaks during consolidation operations in favour of the petitioner and the third respondent has been rejected as well as order dated 24.8.2016 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Ghazipur dismissing the revision.
4. The petitioner and the third respondent are real brothers and joint tenure holders of plot no.924, each having half share. In Appeal No.1217 arising out of objections filed under Section 9-A (2), a settlement took place between the petitioner and his brother on 28.11.2011 under which it was, interalia, agreed that respondent no.3 will have his share of land in plot no.924 towards South and thereafter the chak of the petitioner will be carved out. Thus the chak of the petitioner would lie towards the northern side. There is no dispute that such an agreement was arrived at between the parties.
5. In chak allotment proceedings, the Assistant Consolidation Officer allotted the southern part of the plot no.924 to the third respondent as per the compromise dated 28.11.2011, whereas the petitioner was allotted land towards further North as per the compromise. The petitioner aggrieved thereby, filed an appeal before the Settlement Officer, Consolidation claiming that the proposed chak of the third respondent is on the chak road, while he has not been given any frontage on the road side. He claimed that his chak should also be carved out in a manner so that he may have a frontage towards the chakroad.
6. The Settlement Officer, Consolidation dismissed the appeal by order dated 10.7.2015 by holding that the claim raised by the petitioner is barred by principles of res judicata in view of the settlement arrived at by the parties in Appeal No.1217, on basis whereof the appellate authority decided the appeal under Section 11 by order dated 7.5.2012. It found that the allotment of the chak to the petitioner and the third respondent was strictly in accordance with the compromise. The revisional authority has affirmed the view taken in appeal and has dismissed the revision by impugned judgement dated 24.8.2016.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that a private settlement between joint tenure holders in relation to the manner in which they would enjoy the joint holding is not binding upon them in consolidation proceedings and it was open to the consolidation authorities to make a fresh allotment of chak which could even disturb the private arrangement made by the parties. It is urged that the authorities have ignored the said vital aspect and have wrongly placed reliance on the settlement dated 28.11.2011. In support of his contention, he has placed reliance on a decision of this Court in Virendra Singh Vs. Dy. Director of Consolidation and others1.
8. On the other hand, learned counsel for the third respondent urged that the settlement arrived at between the parties during consolidation operations is binding upon the petitioner and the authorities have rightly held that the petitioner cannot resile from the same.
9. In Virendra Singh (supra) the Court was considering the effect of a private arrangement which took place between the co-sharers much before the start of the consolidation proceedings. It was in the nature of family settlement whereby the co-sharers had agreed to enjoy the joint holding in a particular manner. However, during consolidation operations, each of the co-sharers claimed allotment of chak so that they may have a frontage towards the link road which connects the national highway. In the aforesaid background, the Court held that the private family arrangement made between the co-tenure holders is not binding on the consolidation authorities during consolidation operations and it is open to them to make allotment of chaks to the co-sharers in a manner they may deem fit. It has been observed thus:-
"It is admitted that the petitioner and the contesting respondents are cosharers in the plot no.40 and this plot situate on the side of the link road. In such circumstances being the cosharers in plot no.40 all the cosharers are entitled to their chak on the frontage of the road. So far as the family settlement is concerned and previous possession is concerned the family settlement is relevant for deciding the title but on its basis it cannot be said that in chak allotment proceeding possession cannot be disturbed. If the tenure holder is disturbed from possession in chak allotment proceeding from the original holding then there will be no reason to say that possession on the basis of previous settlement cannot be disturbed. Since the Consolidation is a final settlement, accordingly, every coshares is entitled to claim frontage on the road side which is the land of commercial value. In view of the aforesaid discussion since the Deputy Director of Consolidation has allotted the frontage of the plot to all the cosharers no interference is required by this Court. The writ petition is dismissed."
10. In the instant case, concededly, the settlement arrived at by the petitioner and his brother was after the start of the consolidation operations and in course of the proceedings before the appellate authority under Section 11. The appellate authority acting on the settlement between the parties decided the appeal by order dated 7.5.2012 by making the compromise a part of its order. Once the petitioner had agreed to allotment of a chak in his favour in a particular manner during consolidation operations and on basis whereof the appellate authority also decided the appeal, it was not open to the petitioner to resile from the same and to claim a chak which would disturb the settlement arrived at in appeal. The authorities have rightly held that the chaks carved out as per the compromise is binding upon the parties. This Court does not find any merit in the writ petition. It is, accordingly, dismissed.
(Manoj Kumar Gupta, J.)
Order Date :- 19.10.2016
SL
