Balbhadra Prasad And 5 Others vs Deputy Director Of Consolidation ...
2019 Latest Caselaw 5871 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

?Court No. - 19
 

 
Case :- WRIT - B No. - 1425 of 2019
 

 
Petitioner :- Balbhadra Prasad And 5 Others
 
Respondent :- Deputy Director Of Consolidation And 3 Others
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Santosh Kumar Mishra,Himanshu Pandey
 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Anuj Kumar
 

 
Hon'ble Salil Kumar Rai,J. 

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.

The present writ petition has been filed against the order dated 20.11.1983 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Banda, i.e., respondent No. 1 (hereinafter referred to as, 'D.D.C.').

The contention of the petitioner is that the allotment of chak made vide order dated 20.11.1983 was contrary to the different judgements of the Supreme Court wherein it was held that no Bhumidhari rights can accrue in land included under Section 132 of the Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as, 'Act, 1950'), and therefore, no Bhumidhari rights could have been granted on the pond which has been included in the chak of the petitioner.

It was argued that for the aforesaid reasons, the order dated 20.11.1983 whereby the petitioner was allotted a chak on pond is contrary to law.

There is a delay of almost 35 years in challenging the said order. The writ petition is barred by laches, therefore, it is not a fit case for interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. As the writ petition is barred by laches, therefore, the merits and legality of the order dated 20.11.1983 passed by the D.D.C. are not subject to scrutiny by this Court. Any interference, at this stage, against the impugned order passed by the D.D.C. may result in disturbing the chaks of other tenure holders in the village who have settled and must have made improvements on the chaks allotted to them.

The grievance of the petitioner is that despite the order dated 20.11.1983 passed by the D.D.C., the petitioner is being dispossessed from the disputed plots by the revenue authorities relying on the judgements of the Supreme Court which hold that no Bhumidhari rights could have been granted on land included under Section 132 of the Act, 1950.

Under the roaster fixed by the Hon'ble The Chief Justice, this Court does not have the jurisdiction to consider the legality of any order or the action of the revenue authorities dispossessing the petitioner from the land covered by Section 132 of the Act, 1950. The petitioner may take recourse to any other remedy available to him under the law against the aforesaid action of the revenue authorities.

For the aforesaid reasons, the writ petition is dismissed.

Order Date :- 9.7.2019

Anurag/-