Allahabad High Court
Zinda Hasan vs Deputy Director Of Consolidation ... on 9 July, 2019
Bench: Salil Kumar Rai
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 19
Case :- WRIT - B No. - 1623 of 2019
Petitioner :- Zinda Hasan
Respondent :- Deputy Director Of Consolidation And 3 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Madhusudan Dikshit
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Salil Kumar Rai,J.
Heard the counsel for the petitioner.
The present writ petition has been filed against the orders dated 23.8.2016 and 8.6.2018 passed by the Settlement officer of Consolidation (hereinafter referred to as S.O.C) and Deputy Director of Consolidation (hereinafter referred to as D.D.C) dismissing the revision and appeal filed by the petitioner.
The orders have been passed in appeal and revision arising out of proceedings registered under Section 21 of the U.P Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as Act, 1953).
The writ petition has also been filed against the order dated 8.1.2019 passed by the D.D.C whereby the restoration application filed by the petitioner has been dismissed.
Through the order dated 23.8.2016, the S.O.C had modified the Chaks allotted till the stage of C.O and the said modification has been affirmed by the D.D.C in his order dated 8.6.2018. A reading of the order shows that the petitioner has been allotted Chak on his largest original holding and the recital in the impugned order regarding the aforesaid fact has not been controverted by the petitioner.
The grievance of the petitioner is that the valuation of the original holding of the petitioner could not have been increased from 10 paisa to 40 paisa by the S.O.C and no reasons have been given by the S.O.C for increasing the valuation of the original holding of the petitioner. The aforesaid contention of the petitioner is not supported by records in as much as a reading of the order dated 23.8.2016 passed by the S.O.C shows that while examining Appeal No.155 filed by the co-tenure holder of the petitioner, the S.O.C has increased the valuation of Plot no.1049 after noting the irrigation facilities for the plot and its productivity.
In view of the aforesaid, the contention of the counsel for the petitioner that no reasons have been given for increasing the valuation of Plot no.1049 is not supported by the records.
There is no illegality or jurisdictional error in the orders dated 23.8.2016 and 08.06.2018 passed by the S.O.C and the D.D.C so as to occasion any interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. So far as the order dated 8.1.2019 is concerned, through the aforesaid order, the D.D.C has dismissed the restoration application filed by the petitioner on the ground that the previous order had been passed after hearing the petitioner. A reading of the order dated 8.6.2018 shows that the recital in the order dated 8.1.2019 regarding opportunity of hearing to the petitioner before passing the order dated 8.6.2018 is correct and is based on evidence on record. The restoration application was rightly dismissed by the D.D.C.
For the aforesaid reason, the writ petition lacks merit and is dismissed.
Order Date :- 9.7.2019
IB
