Allahabad High Court
Jogendra Singh vs Deputy Director Of Consolidation ... on 23 May, 2023
Bench: Chandra Kumar Rai
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:113250
Court No. - 18
Case :- WRIT - B No. - 1819 of 2023
Petitioner :- Jogendra Singh
Respondent :- Deputy Director Of Consolidation Sambhal And 5 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Sanjeev Kumar,Ashutosh Shukla
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Arun Kumar Pandey,Brajesh Shukla
Hon'ble Chandra Kumar Rai,J.
1. Heard Sri Sanjeev Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Brajesh Shukla, learned counsel for the contesting respondent no.4, Sri Arun Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the respondent-gaon sabha and the learned standing counsel for the state-respondent.
2. Brief facts of the case are that petitioner is chak holder no.595. Respondent no.4 / Jitendra Singh is chak holder no.293. Petitioner was proposed one chak over his original plot no.664, 665/1, 665/2. Petitioner was satisfied with the proposal of Assistant Consolidation Officer. Against the proposal of the Assistant Consolidation Officer, two sets of objection were filed, one by respondent no.4/Jitendra and another by one Chote, chak holder no.259 which were registered as Case No.163 and 88. Consolidation Officer vide order dated 13.9.2019 decided the objection and disturbed the petitioner's chak by allotting another chak on plot no.567, 523, 517. Petitioner challenged the order dated 13.9.2019 through appeal before Settlement Officer of Consolidation which was registered as Appeal No.24/146 of 2019. Settlement Officer Consolidation vide order dated 27.11.2020 dismissed the petitioner's appeal. Against the order dated 13.9.2019 & 27.11.2020, petitioner filed revision under Section 48 of the U.P. C.H. Act which was registered as Revision No.142 of 2022 before the Deputy Director of Consolidation. The aforementioned revision was allowed vide order dated 29.8.2022 on the basis of compromise between petitioner and Chote. Against the order dated 13.9.2019, passed by Consolidation Officer, respondent no.4 filed an appeal under Section 21(2) of the U.P. C.H. Act which was registered as Appeal No.121/351 before Settlement Officer Consolidation. Petitioner was impleaded in the aforementioned appeal on the petitioner's application vide order dated 10.8.2021. Settlement Officer Consolidation vide order dated 23.4.2022 allowed the appeal filed by respondent no.4. Against the appellate order dated 23.4.2022, petitioner filed revision under Section 48 of the U.P. C.H. Act which was registered as Revision No.220/2023 before Deputy Director of Consolidation. The aforementioned revision no.220/2023 was dismissed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation vide order dated 1.4.2023. Hence, this writ petition against the impugned order dated 1.4.2023, passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation as well as the order dated 23.4.2022, passed by the Settlement Officer Consolidation in allotment of chak proceedings.
3. Counsel for the petitioner submitted that consolidation authorities have not considered the case of the petitioner in accordance with law. He further submitted that the claim as set up in the revision has not been taken into consideration. He also submitted that chak alloted on plot no.517 is not fit for cultivation but the appellate court as well as the revisional court has not considered the case of the petitioner in accordance with law. He also submitted that matter requires reconsideration by the consolidation authorities in the light of the provisions contained under Section 19 of the U.P. C.H. Act.
4. On the other hand, counsel for the contesting respondent submitted that chak has been adjusted between the parties in accordance with law. It is also submitted that parties have been allotted chak on their original plot and the provisions of Section 19 of the U.P. C.H. Act has been complied with. He also placed the judgment passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation in the earlier revision in which the revision has been decided on the basis of compromise vide order dated 29.8.2022. It is also submitted that no interference is required in the matter and the writ petition be dismissed.
5. I have considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perused the records.
6. There is no dispute about the fact that the matter relates to allotment of chak. There is also no dispute about the fact that the chak revision filed by the petitioner against the order of the Settlement Officer Consolidation has been dismissed by the revisional court.
7. The finding of fact recorded by Deputy Director of Consolidation while dismissing the petitioner's revision will be relevant for perusal which is as under:-
"???? ?????? ???????????? ??? ????????? ?? ??????? ?????????? ?????? ???????? ?????? ?? ??? ????, ????? ?? ???????? ??? ?? ??????? ?? ?????? ????? ???????????? ????? ?????? 294 ?? ?????? ???? ?? ?? ?? ????? ?? ???? ??? ??? ?? ???? ?????? 517 ??? ??? ???? 0.214 ??? ????????? 17.16 ?? ???? ??? ???????? ???? ??? ?? ? ??????? ?? ???? ??? ??? ?? ???? ?????? 664/2??? ???? 1.089 ??? ????????? 97.96 ?? ???? ??? ???????? ???? ??? ??? ?????? ???? ?? ???????? ???? ?? ????? ???? ???????????? ?????? ????? ??? ??????? ????? ?? ??????? ??? ?? ?????????? ?? ???? ?? ???????? ???? ???? ?? ???? ?? ??? ??? ??????? ??? ????? ????? ???? ?????? 29.08.2022 ?? ?????? ???????????? ?? ??????? ?????????? ?? ???? ?? ??????? ???? ??? ???????????? ?? ?????? ???? ?? ???????? ????? ?? ???? ?????? 517??? ??? ?? ????????? 13.86 ???? ?? ???? ??? ???? ??????? ?? ???? ?????? 665/2 ??? ??? ???????? ???? ??? ??? ???????????? ?????? ???? ??????? ????? ?? ??? ???? ??? ?? ?? ???????????? ?? ?? ???? ?????? 664,665 ?? ???? ???? ??? ??????? ?????? ?? ???? ?????? 517 ???? 0.041 ??? ?? ??? ?? ?????? 294 ?? ?????? ?? ???? ?????? 664, 665 ?? ??? ?? ??? ?????? ??????? ?? ?????? ???? ?????? 517 ?? ???????? ?? ????? ????? ???????????? ?? ?? 294 ??????? ?????? 142 ?????? ?????? 29.08.2022 ?????? ??????? ???? ?? ???? ??? ??? ??? ??? ???? ?? ???????? ?????? ???????????? ?? ?? ??? ?????? ???? ???? ?? ???????? ?? ????????????? ??? ???? ??? ??????? ???????? ?? ?????? ?? ?? ?????? ???? ???? ????? ???"
8. I have perused the order of the Settlement Officer Consolidation as well as Deputy Director of Consolidation and after perusal no infirmity has been found in the order impugned. The chak has been allotted to the parties in accordance with law, both the parties have been adjusted on their original plots.
9. Considering the entire facts and circumstances as well as the finding of fact recorded by revisional court, no interference is required in the matter, arising out of chak allotment.
10. The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed.
Order Date :- 23.5.2023
C.Prakash
