Daya Shanker vs Deputy Director Of ...
2025 Latest Caselaw 5985 ALL

Allahabad High Court

Daya Shanker vs Deputy Director Of ... on 10 March, 2025

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 


?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:35240
 
Court No. - 49
 

 
Case :- WRIT - B No. - 3329 of 2018
 

 
Petitioner :- Daya Shanker
 
Respondent :- Deputy Director of Consolidation/Chief Revenue Officer and others
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Rajesh Kumar
 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Rahul Kumar Singh,Ram Prakash Rai,R.C.Singh
 

 
Hon'ble J.J. Munir,J.
 

1. Heard Mr. Rajesh Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. R.C. Singh, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. N.D. Shukla, learned counsel for respondent Nos.6, 7 and 8.

2. This writ petition is directed against the order dated 28th November, 2017, passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Deoria in Revision No. 23/29, under Section 48 U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (for short 'the Act of 1953'). This order has been passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation, after the judgment and order dated 16th August, 2016 passed by this Court inter partes in Writ B No. 66497 of 2010 remanding the matter with directions to the Deputy Director of Consolidation to decide afresh.

3. The case arose out of objections under Section 20 of the Act of 1953. The dispute is one between the petitioner, who is chak holder No. 237 and respondent No. 3, Kashi son of Jai Mangal, chak holder No. 90. It appears that the petitioner's father, who had his original holding in Plot Nos. 18 and 111 comprising an area of 0.42 acre during the last round of consolidation operations, was proposed a chak by the Assistant Consolidation Officer with an area of 0.45 acre. The petitioner objected. The Consolidation Officer modified the petitioner's chak to some extent. This order was appealed to the Assistant Settlement Officer of Consolidation, who vide his order dated 15th January, 1983 allotted a chak to the petitioner with an area of 0.30 acre. The petitioner challenged the aforesaid order in revision. The Deputy Director of Consolidation decided the petitioner's revision along with other chak revisions of the village. The revisions were dismissed vide order dated 17th April, 1985. The petitioner filed an application seeking recall of the aforesaid order. The recall application was dismissed in default vide order dated 13th September, 1985. Next the petitioner filed another application seeking recall of the orders dated 13th September, 1985 and 17th April, 1985. The Deputy Director of Consolidation vide his order dated 23rd November, 1985 recalled the order dated 13th September, 1985 and allowed the application. By a subsequent order dated 27th October, 1988, he recalled the order dated 17th April, 1985, dismissing the revision and proceeded to allow the petitioner's revision on merits.

4. It appears that by the order dated 27th October, 1988, the third respondent's chak was adjusted and its area substantially reduced. Respondent No. 3, therefore, filed an application seeking to recall the orders dated 23rd November, 1985 and 27th October, 1988, which came to be allowed by an order dated 10th August, 2010 holding that the order dated 17th April, 1985 was a judgment on merits after hearing parties, which could not be recalled by the Deputy Director of Consolidation. The Deputy Director of Consolidation had no jurisdiction. Aggrieved by the order dated 10th August, 2010, the petitioner filed Writ B No. 66497 of 2010. Upon hearing the said writ petition, this Court affirmed the findings recorded by the Deputy Director of Consolidation vide his order dated 10th August, 2010 that his earlier order of 17th April, 1985 was an order on merits. To the above extent, this Court declined to interfere with the order dated 10th August, 2010 impugned in Writ B No. 66497 of 2010.

5. Next the Court took note of the fact that vide order dated 15th January, 1983, the Assistant Settlement Officer of Consolidation had substantially reduced the petitioner's area. The petitioner had challenged that order of the Settlement Officer of Consolidation in revision which was dismissed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation vide order dated 17th April, 1985. The order of the Deputy Director of Consolidation dated 17th April, 1985 did not consider change in area of the petitioner's chak, which was substantially reduced. It was remarked by this Court that the petitioner is a small tenure holder with a total of 0.42 acre of land. Any reduction in area of his holding during chak allotment proceedings was held by this Court to be about 30% of his original holding. It was remarked that for a small tenure holder this was a big reduction that would cause irreparable loss. This Court, therefore, vide judgment and order dated 16th August, 2016, proceeded to quash the order dated 17th April, 1985 and 10th August, 1985 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation, so far as these related to petitioner's chak alone.There was a remand to the Deputy Director of Consolidation to redress the petitioner's grievance. It was also remarked that as the chak allotment had been finalized in the year 1985 until the stage of the Deputy Director of Consolidation, it would not be appropriate for the Deputy Director of Consolidation to reopen the chak dispute after thirty years. Nevertheless, reduction in area that the petitioner's had sustained to his chak was opined by this Court to be one that could be compensated from bachat land.

6. Upon hearing learned Counsel for parties, this Court is of opinion that all that now remains to be seen is if the Deputy Director of Consolidation in passing the order impugned in this petition, had carried out the directions in the judgment and order dated 16th August, 2016 passed by this Court in Writ B No. 66497 of 2010. A perusal of the impugned order dated 28th November, 2017, passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation, leads us to conclude that the Deputy Director of Consolidation has not at all complied with the order of remand. Rather, he has disobeyed it with impunity. For one he has disturbed the chak of other chak holders apart from the petitioner, which he was specifically forbidden from doing by this Court. Next what the Deputy Director of Consolidation has remarked is that there is no justification to grant any land to the petitioner out of the bachat, because the contesting respondent Jai Mangal succeeded by respondent No. 3, Kashi on one hand and Ram Saran on the other, succeeded by the petitioner are co-sharers.

7. It is also remarked in the order that both parties have the same original holdings, but while allotting chak, Jai Mangal has been given land of a higher value, whereas the petitioner's father Ram Saran or for that matter, the petitioner low value land. It is then remarked that it would be appropriate to adjust it in the chak holder's own holding. The conclusion in the impugned order is that in the circumstances the Consolidation Officer's report dated 16th November, 2017, together with its appended adjustment chart that has been filed in compliance with this Court's order ought be accepted. There is then a remark that the application by the petitioner seeking to summon the original records from the courts below be rejected. The third respondent's application dated 28th March, 2017 was accepted and an adjustment of chak made, accordingly.

8. It is apparent from a reading of the said order that it is in wholesale violation of the judgment and order of remand dated 16th August, 2016 earlier passed by this Court. All that was required to be done by that order was addition to the area of the petitioner's holding from the Gaon Sabha bachat. About that part, the Deputy Director of Consolidation has remarked that there is no justification to do so.

9. As already noticed, the Deputy Director of Consolidation had no business to say that there is no justification to do something what this Court has commanded to done by him. He had to do it. The result would be that area had to be added to the petitioner's holding from the Gaon Sabha bachat and nothing else. The other violation of the order is that he has adjusted the chak of the other chak holders something forbidden by the orders of this Court.

10. All these matter had attained finality in terms of the order of remand and whatever was asked of the Deputy Director of Consolidation to be done on remit of the matter to him he went away about it and did something else. It is made clear that the Deputy Director of Consolidation while passing orders had to act strictly in accordance with the order of remand dated 16th August, 2016 passed by this Court in Writ B No. 66497 of 2010, where he had to add to the petitioner's area out of the Gaon Sabha bachat and nothing else. He could not disturb the chak of respondent No.3 Kashi or anyone else. It is made clear that that allotment now to be done according to the order of remand dated 16th August, 2016 passed in Writ B No. 66497 of 2010 would be given effect to between the final records of the first round of consolidation proceedings and commencement of the current round. It will not affect in any manner the current round of consolidation. The current round of consolidation will commence on the basis of the final map of the last consolidation. The Deputy Director of Consolidation is cautioned to be careful in carrying out the orders of this Court and not pass remarks that are in violation of this Court's orders. This we say again about the Deputy Director of Consolidation's findings as regards adjustment out of the bachat.

11. In view of what has been said above, this writ petition succeeds and is allowed in part. The impugned order dated 28th November, 2017 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Deoria, is hereby quashed. The matter shall stand remitted to the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Deoria for decision afresh bearing in mind the guidance in this judgment.

12. Let this order be communicated to the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Deoria, through the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Deoria by the Registrar (Compliance).

Order Date :- 10.3.2025

NSC

(J.J. Munir)

Judge