Radhey Shyam vs Deputy Director Of Consolidation And 17 ...
2024 Latest Caselaw 19190 ALL

Allahabad High Court

Radhey Shyam vs Deputy Director Of Consolidation And 17 ... on 27 May, 2024

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 


?Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:98852
 
Court No. - 48
 

 
Case :- WRIT - B No. - 668 of 2024
 

 
Petitioner :- Radhey Shyam
 
Respondent :- Deputy Director Of Consolidation And 17 Others
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Ayub Khan
 
Counsel for Respondent :- Brajesh Shukla,C.S.C.,Rahul Mishra,S.C.
 

 
Hon'ble Chandra Kumar Rai,J.
 

1. Heard Mr. Ayub Khan, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Rahul Mishra, learned counsel appearing for respondent no.12, learned Standing Counsel for the State respondents and Sunil Kumar Singh for respondent no.17, Gram Panchayat.

2. Brief facts of the case are that petitioner is chak holder No. 1496. Original holding of the petitioner are plot No. 511Ka, 1912, 1913 etc. Assistant Consolidation Officer has allotted two chaks to the petitioner. First chak on plot No. 503 etc. and second on plot No. 1909, 1910, 1911 etc. Petitioner filed a time barred appeal under Section 21 (2) of U.P.C.H. Act with respect to second chak on plot Nos. 1909 and 1910. Settlement Officer Consolidation vide order dated 10.10.2007 allowed the appeal and made amendment in the chak of the petitioner as well as other tenure holder taking out the area from plot Nos. 1912, 1913 which are adjacent to Village Abadi and more valuable land which was allotted to the petitioner at the Assistant Consolidation Officer stage. Against the order of Settlement Officer Consolidation dated 10.10.2007, Krishna Pal and others filed a restoration application which was allowed vide order dated 24.1.2009 by which the chak of Brij Raj and Mahipal has been amended but petitioner was not affected vide order dated 24.1.2009. Against the order dated 24.1.2009, respondent no.11/ Anuj filed a revision under Section 48 of U.P.C.H. Act before Deputy Director of Consolidation. The aforementioned revision was heard and allowed on 6.1.2018 without opportunity of hearing to the petitioner setting aside the order of Settlement Officer Consolidation dated 24.1.2009 and affirmed the order of Settlement Officer Consolidation dated 10.10.2007. Against the order dated 6.1.2018, one Amit filed a restoration application before Deputy Director of Consolidation which was allowed and revision was heard afresh. Deputy Director of Consolidation vide order dated 29.6.2022 setting aside the order dated 24.1.2009 and matter has been remanded back before Settlement Officer Consolidation for fresh decision of appeal. In pursuance of the order dated 29.6.2022, three appeals were revived before the Settlement Officer Consolidation, one appeal filed by petitioner, one appeal filed by Brij Raj and one appeal filed by respondent no. 15. Settlement Officer Consolidation vide order dated 11.4.2023 allowed the appeal filed petitioner and other two appeals were decided in terms of the order passed in appeal of petitioner but petitioner was not satisfied with the appellate order rather challenged the appellate order dated 11.4.2023 by way of revision under Section 48 of U.P.C.H. Act before Deputy Director of Consolidation. Another revision was filed by respondent no.15, Lakshmichand. Both the aforementioned revisions were consolidated and heard together. Respondent no.2, Deputy Director of Consolidation/ Additional District Magistrate Finance and Revenue, Baghpat vide order dated 3.1.2024 dismissed the revision filed by petitioner. Hence this writ petition filed on behalf of the petitioner for the following relief:-

"Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 3.1.2024 passed by learned Deputy Director of Consolidation/ Additional District Magistrate (Finance and Revenue), Baghpat/ respondent no.1 in Revision No. 0136 of 2023, Computerized case No. 20235411800000136 (Radhey Shyam Vs. Lakshimchand) under Section 48 (1) of U.P.C.H. Act and order dated 11.4.2023 passed by learned Settlement Officer of Consolidation, Baghpat/ respondent no.02 in appeal No. 0057 of 2022, computerized case No. 20225411800000057 under Section 21 (2) of U.P.C.H. Act (Radhey Shyam Vs. Mahipal) vide (Annexures 01 and 02 to the writ petition) respectively."

3. Counsel for the petitioner submitted that plot Nos. 1912 and 1913 are adjacent to Village Abadi and more valuable land, as such, the same was proposed to the petitioner by Assistant Consolidation Officer, but Settlement Officer Consolidation vide order dated 11.4.2023 has not allotted the area on his original holding according to his share. . He further submitted that Settlement Officer Consolidation has not assigned valid reason in the order to deprive the petitioner from plot Nos. 1912 and 1913 according to his share. He further submitted that Deputy Director of Consolidation has also maintained the appellate order without considering the case of the petitioner in proper manner. He submitted that impugned order passed by respondent nos. 1 and 2 are liable to be set aside and the proposal of Assistant Consolidation Officer be maintained.

4. On the other hand, Mr. Brajesh Shukla, learned for respondent no.10, Mr. Rahul Mishra, learned counsel for respondent nos. 11, 12 and 13 submitted that impugned orders have been passed adjusting the chak between the parties considering the provisions of Section 19 of U.P.C.H. Act, as such, no interference is required against the impugned orders. They further submitted that both parties have been adjusted on plot Nos. 1912 and 1913 according to their share as far as possible, as such, no further interference is required in the matter. They submitted that writ petition is liable to 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 chak objection, chak appeal and chak revision have been decided by consolidation authorities under the impugned order and petitioner is aggrieved by the appellate order as well as the revisional order.

7. In order to appreciate the controversy involved in the matter, the perusal of the appellate order dated 11.4.2002 passed by Settlement Officer Consolidation will be relevant for perusal dated 11.4.2024 which is as under:-

"???????? : ????????? ??????? ???????

?????? ????,??????????, ?????, ?????

??? ???????-0057/2022

???????????? ??? ???????-20225411800000057

????????? ???? ??????

??????? ?????-21(2), ????????-?????? ??? ??????? ???????,1953

???? ??????? ????? ?????? ????? ??????

??????

???????? ??? ???? ??? ???? ??????? ???? ????????? ???? ????????? ????? ????? ?????? ????? ??????? ?????? ??? ???? ??? ?? ??? ???????? ?? ???? ????-??????? ??? ?????? ?? ?????? ????? ???? ??? ??, ?? ?? ??? ??? ?????? ???? ????? ??? ????????? ?? ?? ???? ????? ??? ??? ????????? ?? ??? ????? ?? ??? ???? ??????-1912, 1913 ??, ????? ???? 70 ???? ??? ?? ??? 100 ???? ?? ?? ???? ??? ????????? ???? ???? ?? ???? ?? 100 ???? ??? ???? ?? ????? ??? ???? ??????-1909, 1910 ???? ? ????-???? ??, 30 ???? ?? ?????? ???? ?? ???? ??? ????????? ?? ?????????? ?? ?????? ???? ?????? ?? ???? ??????-1912, 1913 ?? ?? ???????? ???? ????? ????????? ???? ??????????? ????? ????? ?????? ????? ??????? ?????? ??? ???? ??? ?? ???? ??? ?? ???????? ??? ?? ????? ??? ???? ?????? ??? ?? ????? ?? ?? ?????? ???? ?????? ??? ????? ???? ????????? ??? ??? ???? ?? ???? ??????-912 ? 913 ?? ????? ??? ??, ?? ????? ??? ???? ??? ??? ???? ?? ?? ????? ???? ???? ????? ?? ?? ???? ???? ????????? ??? ????????? ???? ??????? ????? ???????? ?????? ????? ??????? ?????? ??? ???? ??? ?? ??? ???????? ?????? ?? ??????-1913 ???? ??????-1907/1, 1907/2??? ?? ??? ?? ?????? ?????????? ???? ??? ??, ?? ??? ??? ????? ????????? ?? ?? ???? ??????-1907/1 ??? ?? ?????? ?? ???? ?????? ?? ????? ?? ???????? ???? ????? ??????? ?????? ??????????? ?? ??? ????? ???? ???? ??? ??? ?????? ???????? ?? ?????????? ?? ????? ???? ?? ???? ?? ???? ???? ?????? ???????? ??? ??????? ???????? ?? ?????? ???? ???? ?????? ?? ?????? ?? ?? ??????????? ?? ???????? ?? ???? ??????? ???? ???? ?? ??? ??? ???? ???? ??? ???????? ???? ???????? ??, ?? ???? ???? ??? ????? ??????????? ?? ???? ?? ????? ??? ?? ??????? ???? ???? ????? ??? ????? ????????? ?? ???? ????? ??? ?? ??????? ???? ???? ??? ????? ?????? ?? ??-??? ??? ?????? ?? ?????? ??? ????? ??????? ?? ?? ???? ?????? ?? ????? ?? ???????? ?? ???????? ??????????? ?? ???? ??????? ???? ???? ?? ??? ??? ???????? ??? ??????? ??????????? ?? ??? ???????? ?????? ???? ????? ??? ???? ?????? ?? ???????? ???? ?????? ?????? ????? ????? ???, ?? ?????? ???????? ??, ?????? ????? ??????? ?? ?? ??????- 3?, 3?, 3?, 870, 1162, 1276, 1783, 1496, ??????? ? ??? ???????? ???? ??? ??? ??? ????????????? ????? ?????? ????? ??? ?? ??????? ???? ???? ???? ????? ???? ???? ?? ???-

????

??????? ??????? ?? ???? ?? ???? ????????? ????? ????? ?????? ????? ??????? ????? ?????? ????? ????? ???? ????? ?????? ???????? ???? ??????-20225411800000057 ???????? ????-21(2) ??? ??????? ??????? ????????? ???? ?????? ??????? ?? ???? ??? ????? ????? ??? ?????? ?????? ????? ?????-??????? ?? ?? ??????-3?, 3?, 3?, 870,1162,1276, 1783, 1496, ??????? ? ??? ???????? ???? ???, ??????? ?? ???? ??? ???? ?????? ??????? ?????? ?????? ???? ?? ??? ?????? ?? ???? ???? ??????-20225411800000058 ???????? ????-21(2) ????????? ??? ???? ??????-20235411800000006 ???????? ????-21(2) ????????? ?? ???? ??? ?? ???? ????? ???????? ??? ?????? ????????? ????? ????? ???

??????- 11.04.2023

?? ???

????????? ??????? ???????,

??????"

8. The perusal of the appellate order as quoted above fully demonstrate that case of each and other tenure holders including the petitioner has been taken into consideration. The Deputy Director of Consolidation has also exercised the revisional jurisdiction in accordance with the provisions of the U.P.C.H. Act.

9. Considering the case/ hardship of each and every tenure holder, the impugned orders have been passed by appellate Court as well as revisional Court which is correct exercise of appellate/ revisional jurisdiction in respect to allotment of chak matter.

10. I also perused the C.H. Form 23 of the petitioner which demonstrate that there is no illegality in the impugned order passed by respondent nos. 1 and 2 in the allotment of chak proceeding.

11. No interference is required against the impugned judgments. Writ petition is dismissed accordingly.

Order Date :- 27.5.2024

Vandana Y./PS*