Allahabad High Court
Ram Niwas @ Ramniwas Sharma vs State Of U.P. And 5 Others on 23 January, 2023
Bench: Dinesh Pathak
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 5
Case :- WRIT - B No. - 3643 of 2022
Petitioner :- Ram Niwas @ Ramniwas Sharma
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 5 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Pradeep Kumar Sharma,Amrita Singh
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Rajesh Singh Rathore,Sher Bahadur Singh
Hon'ble Dinesh Pathak,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel representing respondents No. 1 to 4, learned counsel for private respondent No. 5 and learned counsel for Land Management Committee (respondent No. 6) on admission of the writ petition and perused the record on board.
By way of instant writ petition, petitioner has invoked the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India assailing the concurrent finding of fact returned by all the three consolidation courts discarding the claim of the petitioner for carvation of chak over plot No. 320.
Record reveals that petitioner along with his two brothers, namely, Radhe Shyam and Ramdev, have filed an objection under Section 21(1) of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act claiming carvation of chak over plot No. 320 on the ground that all the four brothers are co-sharers in the plot in question and have possessed 1/4 share each over there. However, entire share has been given only to Shri Bhagwan (respondent No.5). Objection filed on behalf of the petitioner along with his brothers have been rejected by order dated 06.11.2019. Having been aggrieved, Ram Niwas (petitioner) and his two brothers have filed appeal before the Settlement Officer of Consolidation, who has dismissed the appeal on the ground that the appellants have been proposed chak over their original holdings and the plot No. 334, 323 and 320 are adjacent to the village abadi having equal valuation. It appears that revision has been preferred only on behalf of the present petitioner (Ram Niwas), however, another two brothers, namely, Radhe Shyam and Ramdev have not joined with the petitioner before the Deputy Director of Consolidation. Said revision was dismissed as well by impugned order dated 30.09.2022 affirming the judgment passed by the Consolidation Officer and Settlement Officer of Consolidation.
Counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that land in question is situated abutting the road and he has illegally been deprived of roadside land. Perusal of the record reveals that no such plea has been taken before any stage of the consolidation courts, such point has been raised for the first time before this Court, however, same has not been pleaded in the writ petition.
Instant writ petition has been preferred only on behalf of Ram Niwas on the ground that he has illegally been deprived of from plot No. 320. All the three consolidation courts have returned concurrent finding of fact that the demand, as made by the petitioner, is not feasible which would disturb the remaining co-sharers. Apart from that, petitioner has been allotted chak over his original holdings. Remaining plot No. 324 and 323 are also situated adjacent to the village. Concurrent finding of fact returned by all the three consolidation courts has not properly been rebutted by the petitioner in the instant writ petition.
In this conspectus, as above, there is no justifiable ground to interfere in the impugned orders passed by all the three consolidation courts. There is nothing on record to demonstrate as to how the petitioner is prejudiced, or is there any likelihood of causing miscarriage of justice to the petitioner, due to the impugned orders under challenge. There is no illegality, perversity or ambiguity in the orders impugned to warrant the indulgence of this Court in exercise of it's extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
Resultantly, instant writ petition, being devoid of merits and misconceived, is dismissed with no order as to cost.
Order Date :- 23.1.2023
K.K.RAO
