Kanhaiya Lal vs Deputy Director Of Consolidation ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 22335 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 


Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:166126
 
Judgment reserved on 9.8.2023
 
Delivered on   18.8.2023 . 
 

 
Court No. - 48 
 

 
Case :- WRIT - B No. - 3915 of 2018 
 

 
Petitioner :- Kanhaiya Lal 
 
Respondent :- Deputy Director Of Consolidation And 3 Others 
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Devi Dayal,B. Malik 
 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Anuj Kumar,Arshid Husain,Ramanuj Yadav 
 

 
Hon'ble Saurabh Shyam Shamshery,J. 

1. Heard Sri B. Malik, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Ramanuj Yadav, learned counsel for the respondent no. 3 and respondent no. 4 is represented by Sri Arshid Husain, who is not present.

2. Present case is arising out a dispute of chak allotment during consolidation proceedings of Village- Guraja Ka Kheda (Bamhori Khurd) Pargana and Tehsil-Kulpahad, district-Mahoba.

3. Petitioner, Kaihaiya Lal, son of Ramdhir has challegned the impugned order dated 27.1.2018 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Mahoba in Revision No.13 of 2016-17 (Smt. Ram Devi & Ors Vs. Devakinandan).

4. At the outset Sri Ramanuj Yadav, learned counsel for the respondent no.3, has pointed out that Devakinandan, one of party in above referred revision petition and son of present petitioner had earlier filed a Writ Petition No.3258 of 2018 against same impugned order which was dismissed by an order dated 22.3.2018 and he submitted that present writ petition at instance of father of the petitioner in earlier writ petition is not maintainable and he refferred the order dated 22.3.2018, which is reproduced in its entirety hereinafter:

Case :- WRIT - B No. - 3258 of 2018

Petitioner :- Deoki Nandan

Respondent :- DDC Mahoba And Another

Counsel for Petitioner :- Brij Gopal Yadav,Rajendra Kumar Yadav

Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Arimardan Singh Rajpoot

Hon'ble Mrs. Sunita Agarwal,J.

The order dated 27.1.2018 passed by the Deputy Director of Consoldiation in Revision Nos.13 of 2016-17 (Smt. Ram Devi v. Deoki Nandan) has been challenged in the present petition with the assertion that the petitioner has been deprived of his 'well' which was existing in Plot No.3689/42/1 M. The said plot has wrongly been included in the chak of respondent-Chakholder No.2121.

To substantiate this submission, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the entry made in C.H. Form 2-A based on an order dated 27.2.2018. The said order was passed in Case No.23 under Section 9 A(2) of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 on the objection filed by the petitioner. It is noteworthy that that said objections were filed against the State and no other co-tenureholder was made party. The Consolidation Officer in one parargraph has conlcuded that in Gata No.3689/42/1 M, 'well' was found on the spot which was not recorded in the relevant records and as such, the entries in this regard are required to be made.

It is noteworthy that Plot No.3689/42/1 was taken out from the chak of the petitioner and has been provided to the Chakholder No.2121 by the order dated 27.1.2018. After the said arrangement was made, the Consolidation Officer could not have passed an order dated 27.2.2018 for recording the 'well' in Gata No.3689/42/1 as personal 'well' of the petitioner. Even otherwise, the report dated 17.2.2018 records that it was a 'katchcha well' dugged in Gata No.3689/42/1 which was included in the chak of the petitioner at one point of time during the current consolidation operations. For the entries made in C.H. Form 2-A under the order dated 27.2.2018 after the chak arrangement was finalised by the Deputy Director of Consolidation, no infirmity can be seen in the order of the Deputy Director of Consolidation. Moreover, no other co-sharer was party to the proceeding wherein the name of the petitioner was recorded in C.H. Form 2-A.

In so far as the chak arrangement made by the Deputy Director of Consolidation vide order dated 27.1.2018 is concerned, no other point has been raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner for consideration by this Court.

The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed.

Order Date :- 22.3.2018 "

(Emphasis supplied)

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that he has no instructions about the above referred writ petition and the grievance of the petitioner is independent from the grievance of his son and learned counsel has referred an averment made in paragraph 22 of the writ petition that he is living separately and has no good relations with his son. Learned counsel has further pointed out that the petitioner is claiming his rights in respect of only Chak No.1948 whereas his son was agitating his rights in respect of other chak bearing No.943.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that petitioner has arrayed his son Devakinandan as contesting respondent in the present petition. Though, he is represented by his counsel Sri Arshid Husain, Advocate however, he has not appeared.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner on merit has further submitted that during consolidation proceedings, objection of revisionist (Smt. Ram Devi/contesting respondent no.3 herein) were rejected by the Consolidation Officer on the ground that she was allotted a chak according to her possession.

8. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that appeal thereof filed by contesting respondent no.3 was also rejected by order dated 6.5.2016 with the following relevant observations and reasons:

"ग्राम अभिलेख व भूचित्र के अवलोकन में पाया गया कि अपीलकर्ता ने उत्तरवादी के चक को प्रभावित कर गाटा संख्या 3689/42/1 का और अधिक रकबा लेकर चक बनाये जाने की मांग की है। जब कि विपक्षीगण चकदार संख्या 943 अपने मूल नम्बर चक पाए है। एक चक चौकोर बना है तथा अपीलान्ट का चक भी मूल पर है। अतः अपील स्वीकार होने पर चको की संख्या में वृद्धि होती है तथा आकृति भी अपेक्षाकृत कम अच्छी बनेगी। इस प्रकार अपीलकर्ता की मांग निराधार है। तद्नुसार अपील निरस्त किये जाने योग्य है।"

(Emphasis Supplied)

9. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that despite reasons were afforded by the Consolidation Officer and the Settlement Officer of Consolidation, the Revisional Authority still has interfered with the aforesaid reasoning and passed an erroneous impugned order whereby the submissions of revisionist/contesting respondent no.3 were accepted and chaks were reallotted and resultantly chak of the petitioner bearing No.1948 was disturbed, which has greatly prejudiced him. For reference relevant part of the impugned order is mentioned hereinafter:

"मैने पक्षों के विद्वान अधिवक्तागणों की तर्कपूर्ण बहस सुनी तथा ग्राम के अभिलेखों एवं भूचित्र तथा अपीलीय आदेश का अवलोकन किया। जिसमें स्पष्ट हुआ कि निगरानीकर्ता चकदार संख्या 2121 का गाटा संख्या 3636/3 आदि पर बना चक चौकोर बना है, जो सही बना है। निगरानीकर्ता चकदार संख्या 2121 व 2578 मे ऊंची जमीन पर उत्तर की तरफ से चकरोड मांगा है यह मांग उचित है। निगरानीकर्ती चकदार संख्या 2121 को मूलगाटा संख्या 3689/42/1 पर हिस्से से कम भूमि मिलने के कारण उसको हिस्से के अनुसार चक प्रदिष्ट करना उचित है। चकदार संख्या 943 व 1948 को भी उनके मूलगाटा पर हिस्से से कम भूमि मिलने के कारण उन्हें गाटा संख्या 3689/45/1 पर चक प्रदिष्ट करना आवश्यक हो गया है। दोनो निगरानी स्वीकार किये जाने योग्य है सभी चक स्वामियो को उनके हिस्से के अनुसार चक प्रदिष्ट किया जाना उचित है। डबल प्रदिष्ट गाटा संख्या 3656/11 चक संख्या 393 व 1622 से संशोधित कर अभिलेखीय त्रुटि का निराकरण किया जाता है। चक संख्या 393 से कास्तकार का कथन है कि संतोष कुमार आदि व देवकी नन्दन आदि उसका मूलगाटा संख्या 3656/11 ले लिये है, जिसके कारण उसे भारी परेशानियों का सामना करना पड़ रहा है। इसके परीक्षण करने पर पाया गया चक संख्या 1622, चक संख्या 393 का मूल नम्बर लेकर डबल पर गलत तरीके से चक बनवा लिये है। ऐसी दशा में अभिलेखीय त्रुटि का निराकरण किया जाता है। तदानुसार तैयार करायी गयी संशोधन तालिका जिसमे चक संख्या 2121, 2578, 943, 1948, 393, 1622, सेक्टर रोड, चकरोड व बचत प्रभावित होते है, के अनुसार चक संशोधन किया जाना न्यायोचित है। अत निम्न आदेश पारित किया जाता है-

आदेश

निगरानी स्वीकार की जाती है। सहस्ताक्षरित व दिनांकित संशोधन तालिका जिसमे चक संख्या 2121, 2578, 943, 1948, 393, 1622 सेक्टर रोड, चकरोड व बचत प्रभावित होते हैं, आदेश का अंग होगी। तदानुसार अभिलेख दुरुस्त हो। संशोधित उद्धरण जारी हो।

पत्रावली बाद अमलदरामद दाखिल दफ्तर हो।"

(Emphasis Supplied)

10. Learned counsel for the petitioner has referred Aakar Patra 23 Part 1, that contesting respondent no.3 was entitled for only .69 hectare of land being half share of her husband. However, to the contrary she was allotted a chak having more area measuring .80 hectare which has sufficient irrigation facility also. However,the Revisional Authority has interfered and wrongly held that Chak Holder of 943 and 1948 were alotted lesser area on Plot No.6389/41.

11. According to learned counsel for petitioner aforesaid finding was contrary to the position on the spot and that the Deputy Director of Consolidation has not made any spot inspection.

12. Learned counsel for the petitioner with lesser force has also submitted that the petitioner and his son had a Well in the other chak.

13. Learned counsel for the respondent has also referred order dated 27.2.2018 passed under Section 9A (2) of Uttar Pradesh Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 by Consolidation Officer that the valuation of Well in the Gata of son of the petitioner was determined and it has legal consequence and for that he has placed reliance on a co-ordinate Bench judgment of this Court in Gaon Samaj, village Pilkhua, Tahsil Soram, Tahsil Soram, Distt. Allahabad through Paltan, Pradhan and Chairman Land Management Committee Vs. H.L. Bhargava, Dy Director (Condolidation), U.P. Lucknow and Anr, 1965 RD 368.

14. Per contra, learned counsel for contesting respondent no.3 has referred Aakar Patra-23 Part 1 that he has 1/4th share in Gata No.3689/45/1 measuring 1.47 hectare and half share in Gata No.3689/42/1 measuring .69 hectare i.e. 2.16 hectare of land in total, whereas contesting respondent no.3 was allotted a chak measuring only .80 hectare which was much less than her share.

15. Learned counsel has further submitted that grievance of contesting respondent no.3 for the first time was heard and considered by the Revisional Authority and it was rightly cured by reallottment of chak which may have affected the chak of the petitioner. However, since holding of the respondent no.3 was of a very less area therefore, according to well settled principles of consolidation, she was rightly allotted a chak according to her total holding and therefore, there was no illegality in the impugned order.

16. Heard learned counsel for parties and perused the records.

17. This is the second writ petition against the same impugned order and counsel for petitioner has failed to disclose the same despite earlier writ petition filed by his son was dismissed by a co-ordinate bench by order dated 22.3.2018 and therefore, its legal consequence would follow on the outcome of this writ petition.

18. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that case of present petitioner was independent and separate from the case of other writ petitioner i.e. his son as both are claiming their rights on different chaks.

19. Order dated 22.3.2018 has been reproduced earlier whereby the writ petition was dismissed by a reasoned order that there was no illegality in the impugned order.

20. For the sake of it, if the arguments are considered that the petitioner was claiming his rights on a different chak and on different grounds, still since co-ordinate bench has already dismissed the earlier writ petition against the same impugned order on the ground that there was no illegality in it, therefore, there is no reason for this Court to not follow it.

21. I have also considered the impugned order and the arguments made by counsel for the petitioner. However, I do not find any substantial ground to interfere with the findings given by the Revisional Authority as well as calculation referred by learned counsel for the respondent no.3 that earlier she was allotted a chak of very less area, in comparison to her original share also has substance.

22. Learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to point out any error in the referred calculation and the submission of respondent no.3 as well as taking note that co-ordinate Bench has already dismissed a writ petition filed by son of the petitioner against same impugned order, I do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned order.

23. Writ petition is accordingly, dismissed.

Order Date :-18.8.2023

SB