Allahabad High Court
Ashok Kumar And 4 Others vs Deputy Director Of Consolidation ... on 24 August, 2021
Bench: Salil Kumar Rai
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 9
Case :- WRIT - B No. - 15718 of 2017
Petitioner :- Ashok Kumar And 4 Others
Respondent :- Deputy Director Of Consolidation Ballia And 3 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Sanjay Kumar
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Ashutosh Srivastava,Brajesh Kumar Chaturvedi,Pravindra Kumar Dubey,Ram Jatan Yadav,Shailesh Kumar Yadav
Hon'ble Salil Kumar Rai,J.
Heard the counsel for the parties.
The present writ petition has been filed challenging the order dated 7.2.2017 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Ballia in Reference Case No. 118 of 2016-17 accepting the Amended Schedule A-1 regarding division of plot between the parties.
It appears from the records that two amended schedules, namely, A-1 and A-2 were submitted before the Deputy Director of Consolidation for division of the plot in dispute. The plot in dispute in the present writ petition is Plot No. 780.
The grievance of the petitioners is that Plot No. 780 is adjacent to road but the petitioners have not been given any share adjacent to road. It has also been submitted that the reasons given by the Deputy Director of Consolidation for rejecting the Amended Schedule A-2 is contrary to law as the consolidation manual does not have any statutory force and as the plot was adjacent to a public road, all co-tenure holders were entitled to a share adjacent to road. The Deputy Director of Consolidation has rejected the Amended Schedule A-2 on the ground that its acceptance would be contrary to the instructions included in the Consolidation Manual. In support of his argument, the counsel for the petitioners has relied upon a judgment of this Court reported in Mohar Singh & Ors. vs. Deputy Director of Consolidation, Meerut & Ors. 2012 (115) RD 782.
A perusal of the records shows that the Deputy Director of Consolidation has divided the disputed plot in a manner that the respondent no. 4 has not been allotted any share adjacent to road and the part of the plot allotted to respondent no. 4 is water logged. It is apparent from the order passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation that before passing the impugned order, the Deputy Director of Consolidation did not consider the nature and quality of the different parts of the land, the total area of which is approximately 1.28 hects. From the records and the pleadings of the parties, it appears that the plot is uneven and different parts of the plot have different value. Apparently, the order passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation has been passed without considering the relevant factors necessary for an equitable partition of the plot.
In view of the aforesaid, the order dated 7.2.2017 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation is, hereby, quashed.
The matter is remanded back to the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Ballia to pass fresh orders in accordance with law after giving the parties an opportunity of hearing within a period of three months from the date a copy of this order is produced before him.
With the aforesaid direction, the writ petition is allowed.
Order Date :- 24.8.2021
Satyam
