Lakshmi Chand vs Deputy Director Of Consolidation And 17 ...
2024 Latest Caselaw 19191 ALL

Allahabad High Court

Lakshmi Chand vs Deputy Director Of Consolidation And 17 ... on 27 May, 2024

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 


?Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:95662
 
Court No. - 48
 

 
Case :- WRIT - B No. - 1570 of 2024
 

 
Petitioner :- Lakshmi Chand
 
Respondent :- Deputy Director Of Consolidation And 17 Others
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Vindhya Vashini Prasad Rai
 
Counsel for Respondent :- Brajesh Shukla,C.S.C.,Satyendra Kumar Singh,Sunil Kumar Singh
 

 
Hon'ble Chandra Kumar Rai,J.
 

1. Heard Mr. V.P. Rai, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Brajesh Shukla, learned counsel for respondent no.10, Mr. Satyendra Kumar Singh, learned counsel for respondent no.11, learned Standing Counsel for the State respondents and Mr. Sunil Kumar Singh, learned counsel for respondent no.17, Gram Panchayat.

2. Brief facts of the case are that petitioner is chak holder No. 1783. Original holdings of petitioner are plot Nos. 511M, 905. Assistant Consolidation Officer has allotted two chaks to petitioner. First chak on plot Nos. 896, 897, 898, 531 area 0.5709 hectare and second chak on plot Nos. 1912, 1913 area 0.3160 hectare. Against the proposal of the Assistant Consolidation Officer, petitioner filed a chak objection under Section 21 (1) of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 hereinafter referred to as U.P.C.H. Act in respect to his first chak allotted on plot Nos. 896, 897, 898. The aforementioned chak objection was rejected by the Consolidation Officer. Against the order of Consolidation Officer, petitioner filed an appeal under Section 21 (2) of U.P.C.H. Act. Another appeal was filed by respondent no.15/ Radhey Shyam which was decided vide order dated 10.10.2007 by which second chak of the petitioner was amended taking out the area from plot Nos. 1912, 1913 which are adjacent to Village Abadi and more valuable land, as well as allotted to the petitioner at the Assistant Consolidation Officer stage. Against the order of Settlement Officer Consolidation dated 10.10.2007, one Krishna Pal 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 set 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 respondent no.15, Radhey Shyam, one appeal filed by Brij Raj and one appeal filed by petitioner. Settlement Officer Consolidation vide order dated 11.4.2023 allowed the appeal filed by respondent no.15, Radhey Shyam and other two appeals were decided in terms of the order passed in appeal of Radhey Shyam which has resulted into depriving the petitioner from plot Nos. 1912, 1913 and adjusted the petitioner on plot Nos. 1909, 1910, 1911. Petitioner 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, Radhey Shyam. 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/ Computerized case No. 20235411800000116 (Lakshmi Chand Vs. Radhey Shyam) 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/ computerized case No. 20225411800000058 under Section 21 (2) of U.P.C.H. Act (Lakshmi Chand Vs. Rajendra) 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 excluded the plot Nos. 1912, 1913 from the chak of the petitioner and allotted bad quality of plot to the petitioner. 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. 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 and Mr. Satyendra Kumar Singh, learned counsels for respondent nos. 10 and 11 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 order. 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*