Allahabad High Court
Rameshwar And Others vs D.D.C. And Others on 20 March, 2025
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:41179
Court No. - 50
Case :- WRIT - B No. - 47370 of 2002
Petitioner :- Rameshwar And Others
Respondent :- D.D.C. And Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Manoj Kumar Rajvanshi,Prakash Chandra Yadav
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,B.B.Sirohi
Hon'ble Chandra Kumar Rai,J.
Order on Civil Misc. Recall/Restoration Application No. 69492 of 2016.
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners/applicants.
2. The instant application has been filed to recall the order dated 29.01.2016 dismissing the writ petition for want of prosecution.
3. Application is within limitation.
4. Cause shown for non appearance on the date fixed is sufficient.
5. The order dated 29.01.2016 is recalled and writ petition is restored to its original number.
6. Application is accordingly allowed.
Order on Civil Misc. Delay Condonation Application No. 67635 of 2016 and Substitution Application No. 67636 of 2016.
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners/applicants.
2. The instant applications have been filed in respect to deceased petitioner nos. 1 & 5 along with the prayer for condonation of delay.
3. Explanation given for delay is satisfactory.
4. Delay in filing the substitution application is condoned.
5. Let the word "deceased" be mentioned against the name of petitioner nos. 1 & 5 and the name of legal heirs of petitioner no. 1 as mentioned in paragraph no. 2 of the affidavit be substituted as petitioner nos. 1/1, 1/2 & 1/3. So far as the petitioner no. 5 is concerned, a note be made that heirs of petitioner no. 5 are already on record of the writ petition as petitioner nos. 2, 3 & 4.
6. Applications are accordingly allowed.
Order on writ petition.
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Standing Counsel for the State.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner is permitted to make necessary correction in the prayer clause of the writ petition.
3. Brief facts of the case are that petitioner's father was Chak Holder No. 271 and the original holding of the petitioner's father were plot nos. 186, 235, 237, 500 having one half share in the plots. Father of respondent no. 3 and 4 was chak holder no. 203 and the original holdings were 186, 235, 237, 500 having one half share. Petitioner's father was proposed one Chak at the Assistant Consolidation Officer stage on plot no. 502M etc. Against the proposal of the Assistant Consolidation Officer Chak Objection was filed on behalf of the petitioners before the Consolidation Officer. The Consolidation Officer made the spot inspection and modified the Chak of the petitioner as well as reduced the difference of the area from 0.378 hectare to 0.223 hectare. The aforementioned order was passed by the Consolidation Officer on 04.05.2001. Against the order of Consolidation Officer dated 04.05.2001 Chak appeal was filed on behalf of the respondent no. 3. Settlement Officer Consolidation vide order dated 19.08.2002 decided the appeal with the consent alleged to take place between both the parties. Against the appellate order dated 19.08.2022 passed by Settlement Officer of Consolidation a revision was filed under Section 48 of the U.P. Consolidation of holdings Act, 1953 hereinafter referred to as U.P.C.H. Act before the Deputy Director of Consolidation who vide order dated 30.09.2002 decided both the revisions by which the revision no. 844 filed by the petitioner was allowed and revision no. 859 filed by Nathulal was dismissed. Hence, this writ petition for following reliefs:-
"(a) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the judgment and order of respondent no. 1 vide annexures nos. 5.
(b) issue any other writ, order or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem just and proper in the circumstances of the case to meerut the ends of justice.
(c) Award the costs of this writ petition to the petitioners from the contesting respondents."
4. This Court vide order dated 13.11.2002 entertained the matter and stayed the operation of the order dated 30.09.2002 passed by respondent no. 1-Deputy Director of Consolidation, Bareily.
5. In pursuance of the order dated 13.11.2002 passed by this Court, parties have exchanged their pleadings.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the Settlement Officer of Consolidation has rightly adjusted the Chak of the both parties in accordance with the provisions of the U.P.C.H. Act. He further submitted that Deputy Director of Consolidation has not exercise its revisional jurisdiction in accordance with law. He submitted that this Court while entertaining the instant petition granted the interim order dated 13.11.2002 staying the operation of the order dated 30.09.2002, accordingly the petitioner is in possession of the Chak of Settlement Officer of Consolidation stage. He further submitted that impugned order passed by Deputy Director of Consolidation should be set aside and the order of Settlement Officer Consolidation should be maintained.
7. Learned Standing Counsel appearing for the State submitted that no interference is required against the impugned orders passed by Consolidation authorities in the allotment of Chak proceeding. He further submitted that Deputy Director of Consolidation has allowed a revision no. 844 filed by petitioner, as such writ petition at the instance of the petitioners cannot be maintained.
8. In reply, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Deputy Director of Consolidation has mentioned in the order that the revision filed by the petitioner has been allowed, but the schedule has not been prepared according to order, as such the revisional order cannot be sustained in the eye of law. He further submitted that stage of Settlement Officer of Consolidation was appropriate, as such the Chak allotted at the stage of Settlement Officer of Consolidation should be maintained.
9. I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Standing Counsel for the State and perused the record.
10. There is no dispute abut the fact that Settlement Officer of Consolidation has allowed the claim of the petitioner in the chak allotment proceeding with the alleged consent of the parties and the allotment was modified, as such revision was filed before Deputy Director of Consolidation. There is also no dispute about the fact that revisions filed by parties were decided vide order dated 30.09.2002.
11. In order to appreciate to controversy involved in the matter the perusal of Section 19 of U.P.C.H. Act will be relevant, which is as under:-
"Section 19-[ Conditions to be fulfilled by a Consolidation Scheme. - (1) A Consolidation Scheme shall fulfil the following conditions, namely, -
(a)the rights and liabilities of a tenure-holder, as recorded in the annual register prepared under Section 10, are, subject to the deductions, if any, made on account of contributions to public purposes under this Act, secured in the lands allotted to him;
(b)the valuation of plots allotted to a tenure-holder, subject to deductions, if any, made on account of contributions to public purposes under this Act is equal to the valuation of plots originally held by him :Provided that, except with the permission of the Director of Consolidation, the area of the holding or holdings allotted to a tenure-holder shall not differ from the area of his original holding or holdings by more than twenty five per cent of the latter;
(c)the compensation determined under the provisions of this Act, or the rules framed thereunder, is awarded -
(1)to the tenure-holder -
(i)for trees, wells and other improvements, originally held by him and allotted to another tenure-holder, and
(ii)for land contributed by him for public purposes;
(2)to the Gaon Sabha, or any other local authority, as the case may be, for development, if any, effected by it in or over land belonging to it and allotted to a tenure-holder;
(d)the principles laid down in the Statement of Principles are followed;
(e)every tenure-holder is, as far as possible, allotted a compact area at the place where he holds the largest part of his holding :Provided that no tenure-holder may be allotted more chaks than three, except with the approval in writing of the Deputy Director of Consolidation :Provided further that no consolidation made shall be invalid for the reason merely that the number of chaks allotted to a tenure-holder exceeds three;
(f)every tenure-holder is, as far as possible, allotted the plot on which exists his private source of irrigation or any other improvement, together with an area in the vicinity equal to the valuation of the plots originally held by him there; and
(g)every tenure-holder is, as far as possible, allotted chaks in conformity with the process of rectangulation in rectangulation units.(2)A Consolidation Scheme before it is made final under Section 23, shall be provisionally drawn up in accordance with the provisions of Section 19-A.]"
12. Perusal of order of Settlement Officer of Consolidation will be also relevant, which is as under:-
???????? ????????? ??????? ?????? ???????
???????? ???? 21(2) ??? ?????? ????????
????? ?????? ????? ????? ???? ???????
???? ??? 363 ???????? ???? ??????? ????
???? ???425 ???? ??? ???? ????? ????
???? ??? 351 ???? ??? ???? ??????? ???????? ????
???? ??? 367 ????? ??? ???? ???? ???????? ???? ????
????????? ?????? ??? ????? 19.8.2002
??????? ???? ???? ??? ????? ????? ???? ?????? 29.10.2001 ?? ??????? ???? ???????? ????, ??????? ????? ? ???? ??? ?????? ????? ???? ??? ??? ???? ????????? ????? ?? ?????? ?? ??? ?? ???? ?????? 27.5.2002 ?????? ????? ????? ???? ?????? 29.1.2001 ?????? ?? ???? ?????????? ?? ???? ??? ?? ?????? ??? ??? ?? ?? ????
??????? ?? ?????? ???? ???? ?? ??????? ??? ??????? ?? ??? ?????? ???? ????
???? ???????? ???? ????? ??????? ??? ???? ????? ??? ????? ??????? ?? ????? ?????? ?? ?????? ?? ????? ????? ?? ?? 90 ???? ??? 70 ?? ???? ?? ???? ????? ??? ???-??? ???? ?? ?? ????? ?? ???? ????? ?? ??-?? ?? ??? ???? ????? ???????? ???? ?? ?????? ?? ?? ???? ???? ?? ??? ????? ?? ?????? ?? ????? ???? ??? ?? ???? ????? ?? ???? ?? ??? ??????? ?????? ?? ?? ????? ??? ?? ???? ????? ?? ?? ?? ?? ??? ????? ?? ???? ???? ?? ?? ?? ?? ????? ?? ???? ?????????? ?? ??? ??? ?? ?????? ?????? ????? ?? ?????? ???????? ???? ???? ?? ?????? ???? ????? ?? ????????? ? ???? ???? ???? ?? ???? ???
????? ????? ???? ?????? 29.10.2001 ?????? ???? ????? ??? ?? ????? ?? ?????? ???? ??? ??? ???? ?? ?? ???? ??? ?? ????? ??????? ????? ?? ????? ????? ???????? ??? ?? ?? ?? ???? ?? ?? ??? ??? ?? ?? ?? ???????? ???? ??? ??? ?? ??????? ????? ????? ??? ???? ?? ???? ?????? ?? ??? ?? ??? ?????? ????? ?? ?? ???? ????? ????? ??? ??? ????? ????? ???? ?????? 29.10.2001 ?? ???????? ?? ??????? ????? ?? ??? ???? ????????? ???? ???????? ???? ?? ?? ??????? ???? ??????? ????? ?? ????? ?? ?????? ??? ?? ???????? ?? ?????? ??? ?? ????? ??? ?? ??? ?????? ??? ???? ??? ???????? ??????? ????? ?? ?? ???? ??? ?? ????? ??????? ????? ?? ?????????? ????????? ???? ??? ???? ??? ?? ?????????? ????????? ???? ?????? ???? ???? ????? ???
????
??????? ??????? ?? ???? ?? ???? ????? ??? ?? ??????? ?? ???? ?? ?????? ?????? ?????? ??? ?? ???? ????????? ??? ?? ?? ?? ???? ?? ??? ???? ?? ?????? ?? ?????? 203, 271, ?? ????? ? ???? ??? ???????? ???? ????? ????????? ?? ??????? ??? ?????? ???? ???? 23 ?????? ???? ????? ???? ?? ??????? ????? ????? ???? ???? ?? ???? ?????? 29.10.2001 ??????? ???? ????? ??? ??? ?? ??????? ??? ????? ?? ??? ?????? ?????? ????? ?????? ???? ??????? ????? ? ???? ??? ?? ?????????? ????????????? ?????? ???? ???? ??? ??? ??????? ???????? ????? ????? ?? ?????
??????- 19.8.2002
?? ??????
(??. ?? ?????)
????????? ??????? ??????
???????"
13. Perusal of Section 19 of U.P.C.H. Act as quoted above demonstrate that tenure holders should be allotted chak as far as possible on their original holding according to their shares considering the source of irrigation as well as in conformity with the process of rectangulation.
14. Perusal of the appellate order dated 19.08.2022 as quoted above demonstrate that there is proper compliance of the provisions as contained under Section 19 of U.P.C.H. Act in respect to allotment of Chak between petitioner and respondent nos. 3 and 4.
15. It is also material that both parties are co-sharer and stage of Settlement Officer of Consolidation according to petitioner is continuing as order of Deputy Director of Consolidation dated 30.09.2002 has been stayed by this Court vide interim order dated 13.11.2002.
16. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, the impugned order dated 30.09.2002 passed by Deputy Director of Consolidation is liable to be set aside and the same is hereby set aside.
17. The writ petition stands allowed and the order dated 19.08.2002 passed by Settlement Officer Consolidation is hereby maintained.
18. No orders as to costs.
Order Date :- 20.3.2025
Neetu
