Allahabad High Court
Jageshwar vs State Of U.P. And 8 Others on 6 January, 2023
Bench: Dinesh Pathak
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 5
Case :- WRIT - B No. - 3382 of 2022
Petitioner :- Jageshwar
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 8 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Ramanuj Yadav
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Neelabh Srivastava,Om Prakash Tripathi
Hon'ble Dinesh Pathak,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel representing respondent Nos.1 to 4 as well as learned counsel for the caveator Respondent Nos.5 to 7.
Petitioner has invoked the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India assailing the orders dated 20.09.2022 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Chitrakoot and order dated 4.8.2022 passed by the Settlement Officer of Consolidation.
Grievance of the petitioner is that the Settlement Officer of Consolidation has illegally taken out the original plot No.402 from the chak of the petitioner, whereas same was allotted by the Consolidation Officer in Case No.156 which has not been challenged before any competent court.
Facts culled out from the averments made in the writ petition are that in the Provisional Consolidation Scheme, Jageshwar (petitioner) has been proposed chak No.94 at three places. First chak consist of plot Nos. 39, 40 etc, second chak consist of plot no.375/2 etc. and third chak over plot No.402. Likewise, respondent No.5 has been proposed chak No.328 at two places. First at plot Nos.404, 506 etc. and second chak at plot No.165, 166 etc. Both the parties having been aggrieved against their allotted chaks have filed separate objections under Section 21(1) of the U.P.C.H. Act being Case No.156 (Satyanarayan Vs. State) and Case No.173 (Jageshwar Vs. State of U.P.). Petitioner has filed objection claiming entire original area of his original holding i.e. plot No.402, however, respondent No.5 has claimed that the valuation of the second chak may be adjusted over plot No.405.
It is pertinent to mention here that several other co-villagers have filed their objections as well against the Provisional Consolidation Scheme. Objections of all the villagers including the petitioner and respondent no.5 were clubbed and decided by the common order dated 24.6.2021 passed by the Consolidation Officer. Consequently, grievance of the petitioner has been upheld by the Consolidation Officer, however, objection filed on behalf of the respondent No.5 was partly allowed. Having been aggrieved against the order passed by the Consolidation Officer passed in Case Nos. 133, 134, 135, respondent No.5 has preferred an appeal before the Settlement Officer of Consolidation. The Settlement Officer of Consolidation has allowed the appeal. The Deputy Director of Consolidation, on revision being filed on behalf of the petitioner, has dismissed the revision. Consequently, instant writ petition has been filed on behalf of the petitioner assailing orders passed by the Settlement Officer of Consolidation and Deputy Director of Consolidation.
It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the Settlement Officer of Consolidation has illegally deprived of the petitioner from plot No.402, which is his original holding whereas no grievance has been made by the respondent No.5 in his appeal qua plot No.402. It is further submitted that the Deputy Director of Consolidation has miserably failed to consider the grievance of the petitioner and decided the revision without adverting to his grievance. It is further submitted that complete area of the original holding i.e. plot No.402 was allotted to the petitioner by Consolidation Officer in Case No.173, however, same has not been challenged before the appellate court. It is further submitted that all the respective parties of Case No.133, 134 and 135 were not arrayed in the memo of appeal before Settlement Officer of Consolidation. It is further submitted that the impugned orders passed by the Settlement Officer of Consolidation and Deputy Director of Consolidation are liable to be quashed being misconceived and devoid on merits.
Per contra, learned counsel for the contesting respondent No.5 has contended that the Settlement Officer of Consolidation has rightly allowed the appeal considering the original holdings of the respondent No.5, which has not been allotted to him. It is further submitted that the Deputy Director of Consolidation has rightly dismissed the revision. There is no illegality, perversity or ambiguity in the orders impugned, which may warrant indulgence of this Court in exercise of its extraordinary jurisdiction.
Having considered the rival submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perusal of the record, it reveals that plot No.402 measuring area 0.1660 hectare is the original holding of the petitioner. The Consolidation Officer vide order dated 24.06.2021 has allowed the objection filed on behalf of the petitioner and allotted him entire area of his original holding i.e. plot No.402. Order passed in Case No.173 (Jageshwar Vs. State of U.P.) became final between the parties inasmuch as same has not been challenged before any competent court. Respondent No.5 has preferred an appeal assailing the judgment of the Consolidation Officer passed in Case Nos.133, 134 and 135 on the ground that he may be allotted chak over plot No.403, which is his original holding, in place of plot No.409. The Settlement Officer of Consolidation has allowed the appeal filed on behalf of the respondent No.5 and made severe change in the chak of the petitioner taking out entire area of plot No.402 from his chak. While passing the order, Settlement Officer of Consolidation has taken out are of 403 and 410 as well from the chak of the petitioner. Petitioner is aggrieved only with respect to the plot No.402, which is original holding and entire area of the said plot has been taken out from his chak.
Grievance as shown by the petitioner is only with respect to his original holding i.e. plot No.402 which has not properly been considered by the Deputy Director of Consolidation, who has decided the matter in a cursory manner without adverting to his grievance. Deputy Director of Consolidation has made emphasis of the fact that plot No.409 etc. are the original holding of the petitioner and he has been proposed maximum area over original holdings. He has lost sight of the fact or that objection filed by the petitioner with respect to plot No.402 was allowed by the Consolidation Officer considering his grievance over the property in question, however, same has not been challenged before any competent court.
In my considered opinion, Deputy Director of Consolidation has not properly adverted to the grievance of the petitioner and decided the revision in a cursory manner, therefore, instant matter is required to be remitted before the Deputy Director of Consolidation to reconsider the revision filed on behalf of the petitioner. As such, instant writ petition succeeds and is allowed. Impugned order dated 20.09.2022 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Chitrakoot is hereby quashed and the revision petition before the Deputy Director of Consolidation is restored to its original number. Both the parties are relegated before the Deputy Director of Consolidation to get the revision decided a fresh after giving opportunity of hearing to the parties, in accordance with law, expeditiously preferably within a period of three months from the date of the production of a certified copy of this order which shall be filed within fifteen days from today.
Order Date :- 6.1.2023
Mini
