Baburam And Others vs Deputy Director Of ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 12685 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
 
 


 
Court No. - 18
 
Case :- WRIT - B No. - 331 of 2023
 

 
Petitioner :- Baburam And Others
 
Respondent :- Deputy Director Of Consolidation, Hardoi And Others
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Amitesh Pratap Singh,Nitin Kumar Singh
 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Anurag Shukla,Dilip Kumar Pandey
 

 

 
Hon'ble Saurabh Lavania,J.

Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner, Sri Permanand, learned State Counsel and Sri Anurag Shukla, learned Counsel for opposite party.

The present petition has been filed for the following main relief:-

"(I) Issue an appropriate writ order or direction in the nature of certiorari to quash the impugned order dated 23.03.2023 passed by Deputy Director of Consolidation Hardoi in Revision No. 1484 Akhilesh Kumar Vs. Smt. Ramlali & Others, under section 48 of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act (Contained as Annexure No. 1 to this writ petition)."

By means of the present petition, the petitioners have assailed the order dated 23.03.2023 passed by opposite party no.1-Deputy Director of Consolidation, Hardoi, in Revision filed under Section 48(1) of U.P. Consolidation and Holdings Act, 1953 (in short "Act of 1953"), assailing the order dated 12.09.2022 registered as Case No. 1484 of 2022, computerized case No. 202254103300001484 (Akhilesh Kumar Versus Smt. Ramlali and Others).

By the impugned order dated 23.03.2023, Deputy Director of Consolidation, Hardoi, provided shares to the co-tenure holders/co-sharers over Gata No. 980 situated at Village Khandheriya Khajhanpur Pargana & Tehsil Vilgrim, District Hardoi. The relevant portion of the order dated 23.03.2023, on reproduction reads as under:-

"eSaus xzke ds vfHkys[k o pd Hkwfp= dk voyksdu fd;kA xk0la0 980 jdck 1-0630 gs0 dk gS] ftlesa mRRkjoknh nsohizlkn dk ew0 20-08 iSlk gS rFkk bUgsa nsohizlkn ds uke cuk pd la[;k 281 esa mlds lkis{k 39-00 ew0 dk pd izfn"V x;k gSA jkeyyh mRRkjokfnuh dk pd l0p0v0 Lrj ij xk0la0 980 ij ew0 15-40:0 dk cuk Fkk rFkk p0v0 Lrj ij mRRkjokfnuh dk pd ogka ls gVk fn;k x;kA iqu% c0v0p0 us ew0 15-40:0 dk pd izfn"V dj fn;k] fdUrq fuxjkuhdrkZ vf[kys'k dk Hkh pd tks pdcUnh vf/kdkjh Lrj dk cuk Fkk oks gVk fn;k x;kA tcfd vf[kys'k vkfn mlds fltjk ds ifjokj dk xk0la0 980 esa ew0 4-80 iSlk FkkA xk0la0 980 O;olkf;d Hkwfe gS vkSj vf[kys'k o mlds ifjokj ds vU; fdlh Hkh lnL; dks dksbZ pd izfn"V ugha fd;k x;k gSA ,slh n'kk esa fuxjkuhdrkZ dks ekax ds vuqlkj pd fn;k tkuk mfpr izrhr gksrk gSA bl izns'ku ls nsoh izlkn ds pdksa dh la[;k 04 gks tk;saxhA O;olkf;d Hkwfe dks ns[krs gq;s fuxjkuhdrkZ dks xk0 la0 980 ls oafpr fd;k tkuk mfpr ugha gSA lM+d ds fdukjs lHkh i{kksa dks pd fn;k tkuk vfuok;Z gSA ,slh fLFkfr esa pdnkj la[;k 46 o 281 esa la'kks/ku fd;k tkuk mfpr izrhr gksrk gSA nsoh izlkn dk xk0la0 665 o 666 Hkh ewy uEcj gSA bl izdkj fuxjkuhdrkZ dh fuxjkuh Lohdkj fd;s tkus ;ksX; gSA mijksDr foospuk ds vk/kkj ij vkns'k gqvk fd&

vkns'k

fuxjkuh la[;k&[email protected] vf[kys'k dqekj cuke Jherh jkeyyh vkfn xzke&[ka/ksfj;k [katgkuiqj] ijxuk&fcyxzke] rglhy&fcyxzke] ftyk&gjnksbZ Lohdkj dh tkrh gSA i=koyh esa layXu la'kks/ku rkfydk] ftl ij esjk lfnukad gLrk{kj gS] ftlesa pdnkj la[;k 46 o 281 dks izHkkfor fd;k x;k gS] vkns'k dk vax jgsaxhA

i=koyh ckn veynjken nkf[ky&nQ~rj gksA"

Submission of learned Counsel for the petitioners is that Deputy Director of Consolidation, Hardoi, has provided four Chaks though, as per the Principles related to Consolation and Holdings Act, normally three Chaks ought to have been provided during the consolidation proceedings and if the authority is of the view that matter can be settled by providing four Chaks then the order providing four Chaks should be reasoned and speaking, however, in this case the order impugned is a non speaking order. Reliance has been placed on the following judgments:-

1. Fateh Chand Chaturvedi and another Versus Joint Director of Consolidation, Allahabad and another reported in 2006 SCC OnLine All 2101.

2. Smt. Ramsaji Versus Deputy Director of Consolidation, Sultanpur and Others reported in 2010 SCC OnLine All 3087.

Opposing the present petition at the admission stage, Sri Permanand Asthana, learned State Counsel and Sri Anurag Shukla, learned Counsel for the opposite party, stated that impugned order dated 23.03.2023, is just and valid and substantial justice has been done by the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Hardoi. Elaborating this aspect of the case, it is stated that all the parties in the present petition as also before the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Hardoi, are co-tenure holders/co-sharers of Gata No. 980, which is a commercial property adjacent to the road. The revisionist Akhilesh Kumar, who is opposite party no. 2 in the present petition, was deprived of his share of Gata No. 980 by Settlement Officer of Consolidation. Accordingly, challenging the order passed by the Settlement Officer of Consolidation, the revision was filed by the Akhilesh Kumar/(opposite party no. 2 in the present petition) and the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Hardoi after considering the facts of the case particularly that the Settlement Officer of Consolidation, has failed to provide Chak to Akhilesh Kumar over Gata No. 980, interfered in the matter and provided Chak to Akhilesh Kumar over Chak No. 980. Thus, the order of Deputy Director of Consolidation, Hardoi, is justified and not liable to be interfered. In support of his submission, he has placed reliance on the following judgments:-

1) Ram Briksh Singh Versus Deputy Director of Consolidation and Others reported in 2005 SCC OnLine All 2204.

2) Ramadhar Singh and another Versus Deputy Director of Consolidation and Others reported in 2008 SCC OnLine All 2070.

3) Smt. Ramsaji Versus Deputy Director of Consolidation, Sultanpur and Others reported in 2010 SCC OnLine All 3087.

4) Smt. Akbari Versus Deputy Director of Consolidation, Moradabad and Others reported in 2005 SCC OnLine All 2260.

5) Hansraj Versus Mewalal and Others, reported in (2019) 3 SCC 682

Considered the submission of learned Counsel for the parties and perused the records.

The facts which are not in dispute are to the effect that petitioners and opposite parties are co-tenure holders/co-sharers of Gata No. 980. Chak was not provided to Akhilesh Kumar (opposite party no. 2 ) by Settlement Officer of Consolidation, over Gata 980, despite of the fact that he is also co-tenure holders/co-sharer of the property in issue. which is adjacent to the road and having commercial value. This Gata never subjected to the partition. As per settled principles of law, all the co-tenure holders/co-sharers should be provided a Chak adjacent to the road side, more particularly if the property is having commercial value. Deputy Director of Consolidation, Hardoi, has power to carve out four Chaks. The law on the aforesaid subject is settled.

Upon due consideration of aforesaid, this Court is of the view that by providing Chak over Gata No. 980 to Akhilesh Kumar (opposite party no. 2), who is co-tenure holder, the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Hardoi, has not committed any illegality. Thus, this Court is not inclined to interfere in the order impugned.  Accordingly, the present petition is dismissed.

Order Date :- 25.04.2023

Jyoti/-