Allahabad High Court
Jaypali 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. - 1540 of 2019
Petitioner :- Jaypali
Respondent :- Deputy Director Of Consolidation And 2 Other
Counsel for Petitioner :- Santosh Kumar Tiwari,Sharad Kumar Purwar
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Mahesh Narain Singh
Hon'ble Salil Kumar Rai,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.
The present writ petition has been filed against the orders dated 16.7.2015 passed by the Settlement Officer of Consolidation, Bulandshahr, i.e., respondent No. 2 (hereinafter referred to as, 'S.O.C.') and 9.10.2017 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Bulandshahr, i.e., respondent No. 1 (hereinafter referred to as, 'D.D.C.') as well as the order dated 6.4.2018 passed by the D.D.C. dismissing the restoration application filed by the petitioner.
Through order dated 16.7.2015, the S.O.C. had allowed the appeal filed by the petitioner and provided for a chakroad adjacent to her chak. Not satisfied with the said order passed by the S.O.C., the petitioner filed revision before the D.D.C. praying that the chakroad adjacent to her be connected to the main road and Nali through Plot No. 502/2. The D.D.C. vide his order dated 9.10.2017 dismissed the revision filed by the petitioner. There is no illegality in the orders dated 16.7.2015 and 9.10.2017 passed by the D.D.C. Under the Uttar Pradesh Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as, 'Act, 1953') or any other statutory law, the petitioner has no right to claim construction of a chakroad adjacent to her chak so as to connect her chak to the main road. The only right, the petitioner had was to have a chakroad adjacent to her chak and that provision had been made by the S.O.C. through his order dated 16.7.2015.
In view of the aforesaid, there is no illegality or jurisdictional error in the orders dated 16.7.2015 and 9.10.2017 passed by the S.O.C. and the D.D.C. respectively.
So far as the order dated 6.4.2018 is concerned, the D.D.C. has dismissed the restoration application of the petitioner on the ground that the order dated 9.10.2017 was passed after hearing the parties, and therefore, the restoration application was not maintainable. The findings recorded in the order dated 6.4.2018 are supported by the recitals made in the order dated 9.10.2017 and the petitioner has not been able to show that the said findings are wrong and contrary to records.
Apart from the aforesaid, the writ petition has been filed almost one year after the impugned order was passed by the D.D.C. and despite opportunity having been granted to the petitioner, no supplementary affidavit has been filed explaining the delay in filing the writ petition. In view of the aforesaid, the writ petition is also barred by laches.
For the aforesaid reasons, the writ petition lacks merit, and is, accordingly dismissed.
Order Date :- 9.7.2019
Anurag/-
