Allahabad High Court
Viks Baghel And 6 Others vs Deputy Director Of Consolidation ... on 19 May, 2025
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:82940
Reserved on 02.05.2025
Delivered on 19.05.2025
Court No. - 50
Case :- WRIT - B No. - 259 of 2025
Petitioner :- Viks Baghel And 6 Others
Respondent :- Deputy Director Of Consolidation District Budaun And 5 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Subodh Kumar,Udit Chandra
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Sher Bahadur Singh,Tripurari Pal
Hon'ble Chandra Kumar Rai,J.
1. Heard Sri Subodh Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioners. Sri S.K. Tiwari, holding the brief of Sri Tripurari Pal, learned counsel for respondent Nos.5 and 6, Sri Satendra Bhushan Dubey, learned Standing Counsel for the State and Sri Sher Bahadur Singh, learned counsel for the Gaon Sabha.
2. Brief facts of the case are that village Behta Javi, Pargana-Kot, Tehsil-Bilsi, District-Badaun came under the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as the U.P.C.H. Act). Petitioners' grand father Khetal & respondent No.5 as well as respondent No.6 are real brothers Petitioner's grand father Khetal was chak holder No.237, respondent No.5/Nand Kishor is chak holder No.503 and respondent No.6/Ram Bharosey is chak holder No.816. Assistant Consolidation officer proposed two chaks to petitioner's grand father, first chak on plot No.217M etc.& Second Chak on plot no.398/2 M. Respondent No.5/Nand Kishor was proposed two chak, first chak on plot No.155/1 M & Second Chak on plot No.398/2. Respondent No.6/Ram Bharosey was proposed two chak, first chak on plot No.114 M & Second Chak on plot No.155/1 M. Consolidation Officer vide order dated 09.09.2024 dismissed the chak objection filed by petitioners, respondent No.5/ Nand Kishore and respondent No.6/Ram Bharosey. Against the order of Consolidation Officer dated 09.09.2024 an appeal under Section 21 (2) of U.P.C.H. Act was filed by petitioners as well as respondent Nos.5 & 6. The Settlement Officer of Consolidation vide judgment dated 18.10.2024 dismissed the appeals filed by petitioners as well as respondent Nos.5 and 6. Against the appellate order dated 18.10.2024 respondent No.5/Nand Kishor, respondent No.6/Ram Bharosey as well as petitioners filed revision under Section 48 (1) of the U.P.C.H. Act. All the three revisions were clubbed and heard together. Deputy Director of Consolidation vide order dated 23.12.2024 allowed the revison filed by respondent Nos.5 and 6 and dismissed the revison filed by the petitioners. Hence this writ petition for the following relief:
"(i). to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari to call for the records of the case and quash the impugned judgment and orders dated 23.12.2024 and 18.10.2024 insofar as it relaters to Gata No.389/2 (filed as Annexure No.13 & 9 restively to their writ petiton) passed by the respondents No.1 and 2 respectively.
ii. to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding and directing the respondents not to give effect to the impugned order dated 23.12.2024 (filed as Annexure No.6 to this writ petition) passed by the respondent No.1-Deputy Director of Consolidation, Budaun."
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that petitioners are having their own source of irrigation in plot No.219 as well as in adjacent plot No.217, as such consolidation authorities cannot deprive the petitioners from the plot in which petitioner's source of irrigation is situated. He further submitted that petitioners are in possession of plot No.217 since long and cultivating the same, as such impugned orders well cause irreparable injury to the petitioners. He submitted that Settlement Officer of Consolidation and Deputy Director of Consolidation have failed to exercise their jurisdiction in accordance with law. He submitted that provisions contained under Section 19 of the U.P.C.H. Act has not been considered by the Consolidation Authorities while passing the impugned order. He further submitted that petitioners are small chak holders, as such they cannot be given three chaks on three difference place, as such impugned orders cannot be sustained in the eye of law.
4. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos.5 and 6 submitted that there is no illegality in the impugned order passed by Consolidation authorities adjusting both the parties on their original road side plot according to their share as far as possible. He further submitted that petitioners as well as private respondent are co-tenure holder of the plot in question as such parties are entitled to their original road plot according to their share as far as possible. He submitted that Deputy Director of Consolidation has adjusted the parties to their agriculture plot as well as commercial plot according to their share, as such no further interference is required against the order impugned passed in allotment of chak proceeding. He submitted that no interference is required in the matter and writ petition is liable to be dismissed.
5. I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned cousnel for the parties and perused the record.
6. There is no dispute about the fact that petitioners and respondent Nos.5 and 6 are co-tenure holder of the plot in question. There is also no dispute about the fact that consolidation authorities in the allotment of chak proceeding has adjusted the parties over the plot in question.
7. In order to appreciate the controversy involved in the matter, the perusal of spot map prepared along with impugned revisional order will be relevant, which is as under:
8. The perusal of the record demonstrate that both the parties are co-tenure holders of the plot in question. The perusal of the order passed by Consolidation Officer, Settlement Officer of Consolidation and Deputy Director of Consolidation as well as map prepared along with revisional order further demonstrate that comparative hardship of the both the parties has been taken into consideration while adjusting them to their original agricultural and commercial plot according to their share as far as possible.
9. Under the U.P.C.H. Act it is not mandatory that every tenure holder should be given chak on original plots but tenure holder cannot be deprived from their original road side plot. In the present matter record demonstrate that both the parties have been adjusted on their road side plots as well as other plots according to their share which is mandate of Section 19 of U.P.C.H. Act
10. This court has held from time to time that original road side plot cannot be allotted to anybody except to the original tenure holder or the same should be declared as C.H.18. The relevant case law for allotment of road side plot to original tenure holders are as under:
I. 993 R.D. 219Raghuvansh Shukla Vs. Joint Director of Consolidation & others.
II. (2006) 100 RD 212 ,Ram Chandar Vs. Deputy Director of Consolidation Varanasi & others.
III. (2020) 147 RD 219 Ram Badan Vs. D.D.C. & others.
11. Paragraph Nos. 15 and 16 of the judgment rendered by this Court in the case of Ram Badan (Supra) will be relevant for perusal which is as under:
"15. The consensus of principle that emerges from the decisions in Ram Prasad (supra), Ramadhar Singh (supra) and Sanjay and another (supra) is that valuable roadside land that is the original holding of a tenure holder, is to be declared chak out or allotted to him as part of his Chak, unless it be imperative on account of some compelling circumstances that may require some marginal departure from the Rule. There is no finding recorded by the Deputy Director of Consolidation or the Settlement Officer that allotment of the entire area of Khasra No. 60/3 (old) to the petitioner, that is part of the petitioner's original holding lies in front of the third respondent's Abadi and would cause the third respondent some great inconvenience or irreparable injury as spoken of in the decision of this Court in Ram Shanker (supra). The remark of the Deputy Director of Consolidation that though it is not appropriate to include any part of this plot in the third respondent's chak as it is not part of his original holding, considering his Abadi, the same may not be disturbed as ordered by the Settlement Officer of Consolidation, is flawed. To this, is added a remark that, therefore, it would not be proper to remove the part of the plot in dispute included in the Chak of the third respondent. For one, it is not reason enough to deprive the petitioner of a substantial part of his valuable roadside land in favour of the third respondent. Moreover, a look at the confirmed consolidation map shows that between one part of old Khasra No. 60/3 (now renumbered as 369) and included in the third respondent's chak and the third respondent's Abadi, there is a sector road running through. This confirmed map is on record as part of Annexure No. SRA-1 to the supplementary rejoinder affidavit dated 18th July, 2019 filed on behalf of the petitioner. There is no dispute about this.
16. The added fact that a sector road now runs through between those plots where the third respondent claims his Abadi and old Khasra No. 60/3 that is the petitioner's original holding, occurrence of even a slight prejudice to the third respondents, let alone a compelling circumstance that may leave no option with the Authorities but to deprive the petitioner of some part of his valuable roadside land, part of Khasra No. 60/3 (old), is a conclusion that cannot be said to be a legitimate exercise of discretion by the Consolidation Authorities, one way. Here is a case where the Deputy Director of Consolidation affirming the Settlement Officer of Consolidation has deprived the petitioner of valuable roadside land in violation of settled legal principles that valuable roadside land is either to be excluded from consolidation operations or included in the Chak of that Chakholder, who held it as original holding. This principle is to be departed from for very compelling reasons that are not forthcoming in this case."
12. In the instant matter petitioners and respondent No.5 as well as respondent No.6 have been adjusted to road side plot No.217 according to their share under the revisional order which is proper exercise of jurisdiction.
13. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, no interference is required against the impugned order passed by consolidation authorities in the allotment of chak proceedings.
14. The writ petition is dismissed.
Order Date :- 19.5.2025
PS*
