Allahabad High Court
Smt. Vimala Devi vs Deputy Director Of Consolidation ... on 4 January, 2023
Bench: Siddharth
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Reserved on 09.12.2022
Delivered on 04.01.2023
Case :- WRIT - B No. - 202 of 2022
Petitioner :- Smt. Vimala Devi
Respondent :- Deputy Director of Consolidation and 7 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Ram Mangal Singh, Ashok Kumar Singh
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C., Dr. K.P. Bajpai, Prabal Kumar Dixit
Hon'ble Siddharth,J.
1. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner praying for quashing the judgment and order dated 24.12.2021 passed by Deputy Director of Consolidation in Revision No. 243 of 2020-21 (Subhash Chandra and others Vs. Consolidation Committee), under Section 48 of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953.
2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for respondent no. 1; Dr. K.P. Bajpai, Advocate appearing for respondent Nos. 2 to 5.
3. Counsel for the petitioner states that respondent Nos. 6, 7 and 8 are only proforma respondents. Contesting respondents are only respondent Nos. 2 to 5.
4. The case of the petitioner in short is that the Settlement Officer Consolidation (SOC) by the order dated 09.10.2020 allowed the appeal of the petitioner after spot inspection. It held that road-side land should only be allotted to original tenure-holders. The Deputy Director of Consolidation, Auraiya (DDC) without setting aside the findings of the Settlement Officer Consolidation has set aside judgment of SOC on the basis of compromise arrived at between the contesting respondents before Assistant Consolidation Officer. The application dated 16.12.2021 made by the petitioner before the DDC for spot inspection was not considered and order impugned has been passed. It has further been submitted that with regard to plot in dispute, being 257/1 (area 0.036), an area of 0.24 hectares was allotted to respondent No. 6 which was more than his share of 0.022 hectares adjoining the road-side. The remaining area of 0.012 hectare ought to have been allotted to petitioner. The respondent No. 6 entered into compromise with the respondent Nos. 2 to 5 and has given his share of land along the road-side to respondent Nos. 2 to 5 and taken the road-side land of the petitioner. The petitioner has been left with area of 0.004 hectare of land only adjoining on the road-side when she is entitled to area of 0.014 hectare. The land on the road-side was required to be excluded from consolidation proceedings as per the Government Order dated 26.05.1981, but the petitioner has been illegally deprived of considerable part of the same which has caused grave prejudice to her rights and also loss of her valuable land.
5. The case of the contesting respondent Nos. 2 to 5 is that the petitioner has purchased the land in dispute from Ram Swaroop Jatav, but neither he was in possession nor the petitioner has got possession of the land. In terms of compromise dated 26.11.2019, the land of the answering respondent Nos. 2 to 5 of original Gata No. 259 was given in Chak of respondent No. 6, petitioner wants the aforesaid land since the share of the petitioner has been illegally encroached by several persons. It has further been stated that the D.D.C. conducted the spot inspection of the land before passing the impugned order. The Deputy Director of Consolidation has considered the order passed by the Settlement Officer Consolidation and thereafter passed the impugned order.
6. After hearing the rival contentions, this Court finds that the sole grievance of the petitioner is that she was allotted an area of 0.012 hectares in plot No. 257/1, at the Settlement Officer of Consolidation stage which has now been reduced to 0.004 only by the Deputy Director of Consolidation. It is undisputed that the land is situated on road-side and is valuable land, therefore, she has approached this Court against the order passed by Deputy Director of Consolidation. The petitioner is not signatory to the compromise dated 26.11.2019, and on the basis of aforesaid compromise between the respondents, her Chak on the road-side has been disturbed. The Settlement Officer Consolidation did not accept the aforesaid compromise.
7. In view of the above consideration, the impugned order passed by Deputy Director of Consolidation, Auraiya is hereby quashed. He is directed to pass fresh order after considering the case of the petitioner as well as the respondents in accordance with law within a period of two months from the date of presentation of certified copy of this order.
8. The petitioner will file a copy of this order before the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Auraiya within a period of one week.
9. The judgment and order passed by D.D.C. shall be sent by D.D.C. to the Registrar (Compliance) of this Court for being kept on record before 20 March, 2023.
10. The writ petition is allowed. No order as to costs.
Order date:- 04.01.2023
G.Singh
