Munawwar Khan vs State Of U.P. And Others
2023 Latest Caselaw 11702 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

						       Court No.18
 
						       Reserved On: 5.4.2023
 
						       Delivered On: 19.4.2023
 
				         WRIT - B No. - 663 of 2023
 

 
Petitioner :- 			Munawwar Khan
 
Respondent :- 			State of U.P. and Others
 
Counsel for Petitioner:- 	Ghazala Bano Quadri, Maseeh 						Uddin
 
Counsel for Respondent :- 	C.S.C., Desh Ratan Chaudhary
 

 
Hon'ble Chandra Kumar Rai,J.

1. Heard Ms. Ghazala Bano Quadri, counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Desh Ratan Chaudhary for respondent no.5.

2. Brief facts of the case are as follows:-

Petitioner is chak holder no.162. Original plots of the petitioner are 54/2, area 0.022; 281/1M, area 0.021; 346/2, area 0.006; 406, area 0.101; 399, area 0.152 (5 plots, 1/3 share 0.101) 908/3, area 0.204; 908/1, area 0.065 (C.H. 18); 908/2, area 0.060 (C.H. 18) (Total 8 plots, area 0.305). Petitioner was proposed two chak. First chak was proposed on plot no.51M, area 0.016; 54/2, area 0.022; 63/2, area 0.035; 62/2, area 0.049; 61M, area 0.051 (5 plots, area 0.173). Second chak was proposed on plot no.346/2, area 0.011; 345M, area 0.038; 336M, area 0.012; 347/3, area 0.003; 361M, area 0.032, 362M, area 0.003 (5plots, area 0.099) [Total 11 plots, area 0.272].

3. Respondent no.5 is chak holder no.200 but petitioner has not annexed the C.H. Form 23 part 1 of the respondent no.5, as such, it is not possible to give details of original number and proposed plot of respondent no.5.

4. Against the proposal of the chak by Assistant Consolidation Officer, a chak objection under Section 20 of the U.P. C.H. Act was filed by respondent no.5 which was registered as Case No.162. The prayer in the chak objection was that petitioner should be allotted chak comprising of plot no.51, 60, 61 & 63 as the same are his original plots and his house is situated in plot no.55. The Consolidation Officer, considering the demand of respondent no.5 has decided the chak objection in his favour vide order dated 13.7.2021/9.8.2021, although petitioner has not annexed the complete copy of the order dated 13.7.2021/9.8.2021, passed by the Consolidation Officer along with schedule attached with the order. Petitioner filed an appeal under Section 21(2) of the U.P. C.H. Act alogn with the prayer for condonation of of delay against the order of Consolidation Officer dated 13.7.2021/9.8.2021, the appeal filed by the petitioner was numbered as Appeal No.248/2021, other tenure holder have also filed appeal against the order of Consolidation Officer which were heard along with petitioner's appeal. The Settlement Officer (Consolidation) vide order dated 21.10.2021 allowed the petitioners' Appeal No.248/2021, allotting plot no.61M, 62M, 63M, 51M, area 0.080 in lieu of plot no. 336M, 337M, 344M, 346M. Against the appellate order dated 21.10.2021, respondent no.5 filed revision under Section 48 of the U.P. C.H. Act before Deputy Director of Consolidation which was registered as Revision No.526/2022 which was allowed in part by Deputy Director of Consolidation vide order dated 30.11.2022 by which respondent no.5 has been allotted plot no.61M, 62/2M, 63/2M, area 0.025 in lieu of plot no.51M, area 0.025 and petitioner has been allotted plot no.51M, area 0.025 in lieu of plot no.61M, 62/2M, 63/2M, area 0.025. Hence this writ petition.

5. This Court after hearing the counsel for both the parties, passed the following order dated 21.3.2023:-

"Put up this case as fresh on 27.3.2023 at 2:00 P.M.

Learned counsel for the respective parties shall prepare the sketch map of all the stages of consolidation operation and place before the court on next date."

6. In compliance of the order of this Court dated 21.3.2023, counsel for the respondent no.5 has filed an affidavit , annexing the copy of sketch map of different stages of consolidation as well as C.H. Form 5 of both parties.

7. Counsel for the petitioner has also filed the self-prepared sketch map of different stages of consolidation which is taken on record.

8. Counsel for the petitioner submitted that appellate court has rightly allowed the chak appeal of the petitioner against the order of Consolidation Officer but revisional court has illegally interferred with the order of appellate court without any basis, as such, impugned revisional order be set aside and order of appellate court be affirmed. She further submitted that provisions of Section 19 of the U.P. C.H. Act has not been taken into consideration while passing the impugned revisional order, as such, the same cannot be sustained in the eye of law. She further relied upon the sketch hmap in order to demonstrate that petitioner's chak has been affected under the impugned revisional order, as such, the dispute is to be reconsidered by revisional court.

9. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent no.5 submitted that under the revisional order, both parties have been adjusted as far as possible on their original plots, as such, no interference is required against the impugned order. He further placed reliance upon C.H. Form 23 part 1 of the petitioner as well as C.H. Form 5 annexed along with the affidavit in order to demonstrate that there is no violation of the provisions contained under Section 19 of the U.P. C.H. Act. He further submitted that sketch map of different stages of consolidation filed by respondent no.5 along with affidavit, demonstrate that allotment of chak under the impugned revisional order is in the interest of both parties and no interference is required against he impugned orders.

10. I have considered that arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perused the records.

11. There is no dispute about the fact that the chak objection filed by respondent no.5, was decided by the Consolidation Officer vide order dated 13.7.2021/9.8.2021. There is also no dispute about the fact that the appeal under Section 21(2) of the U.P. C.H. Act filed by the petitioner along with other appeals, were heard and decided vide order dated 21.10.2021 by which the petitioners' appeal was allowed. There is also no dispute about the fact that the revision under Section 48 of the U.P. C.H. Act filed by respondent no.5 was ultimately partly allowed vide order dated 30.11.2022 by which the claim of the petitioner as well as respondent no.5 have been adjusted.

12. In order to appreciate the controversy involved in the writ petition, the perusal of Section 19 of the U.P. C.H. Act would be necessary and the same is quoted hereunder:-

"19. Conditions to be fulfilled by a Consolidation Scheme. - (1) A Consolidation Scheme shall fulfil the following conditions, namely, -

(a) the rights and liabilities of a tenure-holder, as recorded in the annual register prepared under Section 10, are, subject to the deductions, if any, made on account of contributions to public purposes under this Act, secured in the lands allotted to him;

(b) the valuation of plots allotted to a tenure-holder, subject to deductions, if any, made on account of contributions to public purposes under this Act is equal to the valuation of plots originally held by him :

Provided that, except with the permission of the Director of Consolidation, the area of the holding or holdings allotted to a tenure-holder shall not differ from the area of his original holding or holdings by more than twenty five per cent of the latter;

(c) the compensation determined under the provisions of this Act, or the rules framed thereunder, is awarded -

(1) to the tenure-holder -

(i) for trees, wells and other improvements, originally held by him and allotted to another tenure-holder, and

(ii) for land contributed by him for public purposes;

(2) to the Gaon Sabha, or any other local authority, as the case may be, for development, if any, effected by it in or over land belonging to it and allotted to a tenure-holder;

(d) the principles laid down in the Statement of Principles are followed;

(e) every tenure-holder is, as far as possible, allotted a compact area at the place where he holds the largest part of his holding :

Provided that no tenure-holder may be allotted more chaks than three, except with the approval in writing of the Deputy Director of Consolidation :

Provided further that no consolidation made shall be invalid for the reason merely that the number of chaks allotted to a tenure-holder exceeds three;

(f) every tenure-holder is, as far as possible, allotted the plot on which exists his private source of irrigation or any other improvement, together with an area in the vicinity equal to the valuation of the plots originally held by him there; and

(g) every tenure-holder is, as far as possible, allotted chaks in conformity with the process of rectangulation in rectangulation units.

(2) A Consolidation Scheme before it is made final under Section 23, shall be provisionally drawn up in accordance with the provisions of Section 19-A.]"

13. Considering the provisions of Section 19 of the U.P. C.H. Act, it is very much clear that the claim of the tenure holder with respect to allotment of chak should be considered as far as possible to redress the grievance of the parties in the light of the provisions contained under section 19 of U.P.C.H. Act.

12. Relevant portion of the judgment of the revisional court dated 30.11.2022 is as follows:-

"उभय पक्ष के विद्वान अधिवक्ता उपस्थित आये, उनके तर्कों को सुना गया। उभय पक्ष के तर्कों के परिप्रेक्ष्य में अभिलेख, भूचित्र व पत्रावली का अध्ययन एवं परिशीलन किया गया तथा पक्षों की उपस्थिति में स्थलीय निरीक्षण किया गया। निगरानीकर्ता चकदार संख्या 200 रामासरे पुत्र केवला का मूल गाटा संख्या 21/1, 21/5, 70, 72, 76, 91, 92, 160, 161, 259, 261/1, 268/1, 272 हैं। सहायक चकबन्दी अधिकारी स्तर पर एक चक बिना मूल गाटा संख्या 55/2, 56, 58, 59, 60, 64, 65, 66, 67 पर प्रस्तावित किया गया था। चकबन्दी अधिकारी स्तर पर आंशिक संशोधन करते हुए बिना मूल गाटा संख्या 55/2, 56, 57, 58, 60, 61, 62, 63/2, 64, 65 पर चक प्रदिष्ट किया गया। बन्दोबस्त अधिकारी चकबन्दी स्तर पर आंशिक संशोधन करते हुए बिना मूल गाटा संख्या 51, 55/2, 56, 57, 58, 60, 61, 62, 63/2, 64, 65, 67 पर इनकी गाटा संख्या 55/1 में स्थित आबादी एवं आस-पास के मूल गाटों के दृष्टिगत एल आकार का चक प्रदिष्ट किया गया है। प्रतिपक्षी चकदार संख्या 162 मुनौवर खाँ पुत्र अमीन खाँ का मूल गाटा संख्या 54/2, 281/1, 346/2, 399, 406, 908/3 हैं। सहायक चकबन्दी अधिकारी स्तर पर प्रथम चक मूल गाटा संख्या 54/2 पर अन्य गाटा संख्या 51, 61, 62/2, 63/2 को लेकर एवं द्वितीय चक मूल गाटा संख्या 346/2 पर अन्य गाटा संख्या 336, 345, 347/3, 361/1, 362 को लेकर प्रस्तावित किया गया था। चकबन्दी अधिकारी स्तर पर संशोधन करते हुए, प्रथम चक मूल गाटा संख्या 54/2 पर अन्य गाटा संख्या 61, 62/2, 63/2 को लेकर एवं द्वितीय चक मूल गाटा संख्या 346/2 पर अन्य गाटा संख्या 336, 337 345, 347/3, 361/1, 362 को लेकर प्रदिष्ट किया गया। बन्दोबस्त अधिकारी चकबन्दी स्तर पर आंशिक संशोधन करते हुए, प्रथम चक मूल गाटा संख्या 54/2 पर अन्य गाटा संख्या 51, 61, 62/2, 63/2 को लेकर एवं द्वितीय चक मूल गाटा संख्या 346/2 पर अन्या गाटा संख्या 336, 345, 347/3, 361/1, 362 को लेकर प्रदिष्ट किया गया। निगरानीकर्ता द्वारा माँग की गई है कि उसको उसके मूल गाटा संख्या 60, 61, 64 आदि पर चक दिया जाय, परन्तु निगरानीकर्ता के मूल गाटा संख्या 60, 61, 62, 63, 64 आदि नहीं है, इसलिए माँग के अनुसार चक दिया जाना उचित प्रतीत नहीं होता है। निगरानीकर्ता की आबादी गाटा संख्या 55/1 में एवं बाउली गाटा संख्या 64 में होने के दृष्टिगत निगरानीकर्ता को बिना मूल गाटा का चक दिया गया है, परन्तु निगरानीकर्ता को एल आकार का एवं प्रतिपक्षी मुनौवर खाँ को निगरानीकर्ता की आबादी के पश्चिमी व उत्तरी सिरे से सटाकर चक कायम कर दिए गए है, जो न्यायोचित नहीं है। निगरानीकर्ता का एल आकार का चक में से पश्चिमोत्तर भाग खारिज कर प्रतिपक्षी मुनौवर खाँ को देकर तथा प्रतिपक्षी मुनौवर खाँ के चक में से दक्षिणी भाग जो निगरानीकर्ता की आबादी से पश्चिम है, उसे कम करके निगरानीकर्ता को उसकी आबादी के दृष्टिगत दिया जाना उचित प्रतीत होता है। तदनुसार निगरानी आंशिक रूप से स्वीकार किए जाने योग्य है।

आदेश

उपरोक्त विवेचना के परिप्रेक्ष्य में चकदार संख्या 200 रामासरे पुत्र केवला की निगरानी आंशिक रूप से स्वीकार की जाती है। संलग्न संशोधन तालिका जिस पर मेरा हस्ताक्षर है तथा जिससे चक संख्या 200 व 162 प्रभावित हो रहे हैं, आदेश का अंग होगी। बाद आवश्यक कार्यवाही पत्रावली दाखिल दफ्तर हो।

ह० अपठनीय

30.XI.2022

(सत्य प्रकाश सिंह)

अपर जिलाधिकारी (भू-राजस्व)

13. A perusal of the order of the Deputy Director of Consolidation dated 30.11.2022 as quoted above fully reveals that the Deputy Director of Consolidation has himself made the spot inspection in presence of the parties which is mentioned in the order itself. The order further reveals that the revisional court has considered each and every aspect of the case regarding original plots, shape of the chak and claim made by the parties before consolidation authorities. There cannot be any further consideration or adjustment of the chak to the tenure holder which has been made by the Deputy Director of Consolidation while deciding the revision vide impugned order dated 30.11.2022.

14. The self-prepared sketch map in respect to the different stage of the consolidation filed by both the parties also reveals that the revisional court has rightly allotted the chak considering the shape as well as abadi and other aspect of the matter. Section 19 of the U.P. C.H. Act as quoted above, provides that chak should be allotted/adjusted, taking into consideration the provisions contained under Section 19 of the U.P. C.H. Act as far as possible which has been fully complied by revisional court while passing the impugned order.

15. In the instant case, the Deputy Director of Consolidation has rightly exercised the revisional jurisdiction by which the claim of allotment of chak of both the parties have been taken into consideration.

16. Considering the entire facts and circumstances as well as the provisions contained under Section 19 of the U.P. C.H. Act and the finding recorded by the revisional court, no interference is required against the impugned revisional order dated 30.11.2022, passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation.

17. The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed.

Order Date :- 19.4.2023

C.Prakash

(Chandra Kumar Rai, J.)