Ramji Lal vs D.D.C. And Others
2017 Latest Caselaw 2690 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

A.F.R. 
 
Court No. - 8
 

 
Case :- WRIT - B No. - 24227 of 2001
 

 
Petitioner :- Ramji Lal
 
Respondent :- D.D.C. And Others
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- S.N.Singh,A.K.Rai
 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,K.R.Sirohi,V.K.Singh
 

 
Hon'ble Ashok Kumar,J.

Heard Sri Vishnu Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned standing counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent nos. 1 and 2. No one is present on behalf of the private respondent nos. 3 to 9.

The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner Ramji Lal against the judgment and order dated 25.05.2001 ( Annexure - 10 to the writ petition) and order dated 9.4.1999 (Annexure- 6 to the writ petition) passed by the respondent no. 1, Deputy Director of Consolidation, Meerut and Settlement Officer of Consolidation, Meerut.

The petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs:-

"(1) To issue a writ of certiorari, quashing the impugned orders dated 25.05.2001 (Annexure -10) and dated 09.04.1999 (Annexure-6) passed by respondents 1 and 2 the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Meerut and the Settlement Officer of Consolidation, Meerut, respectively;

(2) To issue a writ of mandamus staying the operation of the impugned order dated 25.05.2001 (Annexure-10) of respondent no. 1, the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Meerut, during the pendency of the writ petition;

(3) To issue a writ of mandamus, restraining the contesting respondents / chakholders no. 1049 (respondents 6 to 9 sons of late Munshi) from changing the nature of the disputed plot nos. 3190 to 3195 etc. situate in Village - Sirsaldar-Kavada, Pargana - Barnawa, Tehsil - Baraut, District-Bagpat, in consequence of the impugned orders dated 25.05.2001 and 09.04.1999 (Annexure-10 and 6) of respondents 1 and 2 respectively, during the pendency of the instant petition;"

The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner Ramji Lal was the chak holder of chak no. 1270 whereas contesting respondent no. 6 to 9 were the chak holders of chak no. 1049 and the contesting respondent nos. 4 and 5 are chak holders of chak no. 635.

According to the petitioner an electric tubewell (water pumping set) has been setup in an abadi plot no. 3198 investing huge amount for installation of the said tubewell on the said plot.

The Consolidation proceedings began and the Consolidation Officer has given two chaks to the petitioner, namely, first chak was adjacent to the tubewell installed at plot no. 3198 and the second chak was given on plot no. 3248. The Consolidation Officer has passed an order dated 5.1.1995 in this regard.

An appeal under Section 21(2) of the U.P. Consolidation and Holding Act, 1953 has been filed by the petitioner before the Settlement Officer of Consolidation, Meerut, in which the petitioner has claimed that his second chak be abolished and that he should be given another chak adjacent to his tubewell, so that he can utilise the tubewell for the irrigation purposes effectively.

The Settlement Officer of Consolidation, Meerut has heard the appeal at length and had passed an order dated 09.04.1999, by which order the S.O.C. has considered the claim of other land owners including one Hari Singh ( respondent no. 3) and has passed an order.

According to the petitioner no opportunity was offered by the S.O.C., therefore, a restoration application was filed and the same was rejected vide order dated 15.07.1999.

The petitioner thereafter has challenged the order dated 09.04.1999 passed by the S.O.C. in appeal nos. 47 and 51 of 1999, further the petitioner has challenged the order dated 15.07.1999 by filing a revision under Section 48 before the Deputy Director of Consolidation.

According to the petitioner the revision said to be filed against the order dated 15.07.1999 rejecting the restoration application, was pending till filing of the present writ petition. There is no material available about the fait of the said revision filed by the petitioner nor the petitioner has provided any details of the same before this Court.

The writ petition has been filed by the petitioner on 03.07.2001 which came up for consideration before this Court on 06.07.2001. The order sheet dated 06.07.2001 indicates that the learned counsel for the petitioner has prayed before the Court to grant him two weeks time to file a supplementary affidavit.

A supplementary affidavit has been filed by the petitioner enclosing therein C.H. form no. 23 part 1 pertaining to the petitioner's chak holder no. 1270 and chak holder no. 249.

According to the petitioner the Deputy Director of Consolidation though has allowed the revision of the petitioner but he has not given Mool numbers of the petitioner in his chak as such has given the Mool numbers of contesting respondent.

According to the petitioner in the chak allotment proceeding, the petitioner has not been given chak on the place where he has made some improvement. The allegation of the petitioner is that the chak which has been improved by the petitioner has gone in the chak of his co-sharer chak holder.

In paragraph no. 6 of the supplementary affidavit it has been submitted that the chak holder no. 1804, one Hari Singh had obtained a stay order and Amal Daramad of the said allocation of chaks. The petitioner may not get the water supply as the respondents will not allow the water to the petitioner from his tubewell.

I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner at length and have perused the impugned judgment of the Deputy Director of Consolidation.

Two revisions being revision no. 585 (filed by the present petitioner) and revision no. 443 (one Hari Singh) are filed under Section 48 of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 and the same are decided by common judgment dated 25.05.2001.

The learned D.D.C. has considered the order passed by the S.O.C. and Consolidation Officer and after due consideration has allotted the chak no. 3198 to the petitioner nearby which the tubewell of the petitioner has been installed. From the perusal of the impugned order it is crystal clear and that is also admitted by the revisionist / petitioner before this Court that it was not possible to allot a single chak on gata no. 3198 for the reason that several other co-sharers / co-owners were claiming and therefore, the D.D.C. has allotted the chak no. 3199 nearby tubewell installed by the petitioner which was closed to gata no. 3198.

In my opinion there is no error in the impugned order of the D.D.C. as the D.D.C. has taken care of the claim of the petitioner as well as the other co-owners of the land.

On asking by the Court about any interim order passed by this Court, learned counsel for the petitioner has fairly accepted that there was no interim order granted by this Court and that the matter is pending since last over 17 years and the petitioner is actively involved in the agricultural activities on the chaks allotted to him. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that since by a common order dated 25.05.2001 the D.D.C. has passed an order in two separate revisions being revision nos. 585 (filed by the present petitioners) and revision no. 445 (filed by one Hari Singh) and Hari Singh (opposite party no. 3) has challenged the said order of the D.D.C. through writ petition no. 22613 of 2001 in which an interim order has been passed, therefore, the petitioner on the pretext of the said interim order passed in the writ petition filed by the Hari Singh is also entitled to get the benefit of the said interim order. The claim of the petitioner is not acceptable.

The interim order passed by this Court in the case of Hari Singh is confined only to Hari Singh and no benefit can be taken by the present petitioner particularly when in the case of the petitioner himself no interim order has been passed nor there is any averments in the writ petition about the said proceedings.

Further on enquiry, it is found that even the writ petition filed by Hari Singh is dismissed by this Court and the interim order granted in favour of Hari Singh has been vacated.

In view of the aforesaid facts and upon the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court find no error in the impugned order of the D.D.C. dated 25.05.2001. The writ petition has no force and therefore is accordingly, dismissed.

Order Date :- 26.7.2017

SK Srivastava