Dhoopchand vs State Of U.P. And 19 Others
2025 Latest Caselaw 7237 ALL

Allahabad High Court

Dhoopchand vs State Of U.P. And 19 Others on 26 May, 2025

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 


?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:88891
 
Reserved on 13.05.20254
 
Delivered on 26.05.2025
 
Court No. - 50
 

 
Case :- WRIT - B No. - 1647 of 2025
 

 
Petitioner :- Dhoopchand
 
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 19 Others
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Atul Yadav,Nisheeth Yadav
 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Shashi Ranjan Srivastava
 

 
Hon'ble Chandra Kumar Rai,J.
 

1. Heard Sri C.B. Yadav, learned senior counsel assisted by Sri Atul Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri Anil Bhushan, learned senior counsel assisted by Sri Shashi Ranjan Srivastava learned counsel for private respondent Nos.5 to13, 15 and 19 and Sri R. C. Srivastava, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State-respondents.

2.Brief facts of the case are that petitioner/Dhoopchand is chak holder No.61 and 167, Respondent No.8/Rama Shanker is chak holder No.364, Respondent No.5/Beena Devi, respondent No.6/Sweta and respondent No.7/Bobby are chak holder No.226Aa. The original holding of the petitioner-Dhoopchand (chak holder No.167) are plot No.82/17, 82/18, 82/24, 82/26, 86/1, 86/2, 91, 105/1, 105/2, 74/4, 76, 76, 82/26 and petitioner was proposed four chaks by Assistant Consolidation Officer. First chak was proposed on plot No.82/18, 96/01, second chak was proposed plot No.104, 105/2, 112/01, third chak was proposed on plot 82/18, 82/19, 91, 93/4, fourth chak was proposed on plot No.79, 82/26. Petitioner/Dhoopchand (chak holder No.61) was proposed single chak on plot No.82/17, 82/24 86/2 115/1 and the original plot of the petitioners (chak holder No.61) are 82/17, 82/18, 82/24, 82/26, 86/01, 86/2, 91 105/1, 105/2. Against the proposal of the Assistant Consolidation Officer, chak objections were filed on behalf of petitioner and consolidation officer has allowed the objection vide order dated 03.10.2023. Against the order of Consolidation Officer dated 03.10.2023, chak appeal under Section 21 (2) of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act 1953 (hereinafter refered to as the U.P.C.H. Act) was filed by petitioner. Settlement Officer of Consolidation vide order dated 27.09.2024 allowed the appeal. Against the order of Settlement Officer of Consolidation dated 27.09.2024 revision under Section 48 of U.P.C.H. Act was filed on behalf of petitioner. Several other revisions were also filed against the order of Settlement officer Consolidation dated 27.09.2024. All the revisions were clubbed and heard together.Additional District Magistrate (F & R)/Deputy Director of Consolidation allowed all the revisions. Hence this writ petition on behalf of the petitioner/Dhoopchand for the following relief:

"1.Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Certiorari quashing the correction chart /Sansodhan Talika prepared by Consolidation Authorities as per order dated 13.12.2024 passed by Deputy Director of Consolidation, Chandauli in Case No.778 of 2024 Computer Case No.202454141800000778, under section 48 of C.H. Act (Chhavinath vs. Arvind Kumar) as well as the order dated 07.03.2025 passed by Deputy Director of Consolidation, Chandauli in Case No. RST/0017/2025 Computer Case No. 20255414800000017, under section 48(1) of C.H. Act (Chhavinath vs. Arvind Kumar) as well case No.517 of 2024 Computer Case No.202454141800000517, under section 21(2) of C.H. Act, 1953 (Rabbi Devi vs. Prabhavati Devi and others) (Annexure No.1 & 2 to this writ petition);

II. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Certiorari for quashing the part of the order dated 27.03.2025 passed by Consolidation Officer, Chandauli in Computer Case No.20255414878010815 (Dhoopchand vs. Sudarshan and others), under Section 9-A (2) of C.H. Act (Annexure No.3 to this Writ petition)."

3. Sri C.B. Yadav, learned Senior counsel assisted by Sri Atul Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that consolidation authorities have not decided the chak objection, chak appeal and chak revision according to the provision contained under Section 19 of U.P.C.H. Act as such impugned orders cannot be sustained in the eye of law. He further submitted that schedule has not been prepared according to the order passed by the authorities as such the impugned orders cannot be sustained. He further submitted that according to the provisions contained under Section 19 (e) of U.P.C.H. Act tenure holder should be allotted a compact area at the place where they hold the largest part of their holding, but authorities have not been followed the provisions contained under Section 19 (e) of U.P.C.H. Act. He further submitted that petitioner has been allotted four chaks in violation of the provisions of Section 19 (e) of U.P.C.H. Act as such the impugned orders cannot be sustained in the eye of law. He further submitted that claim of the petitioner for allotment of road side plot according to his share has not been properly considered by the consolidation authorities as such the impugned orders are liable to be set aside and petitioner's claim should be examined afresh in light of the provisions contained under Section 19 (e) of U.P.C.H. Act.

4. On the other hand, Sri Anil Bhushan, learned senior counsel assisted by Sri Shashi Ranjan Srivastava, learned counsel for the private respondents submitted that at every stage, petitioner has been granted relief by the consolidation authorities as such writ petition against the impugned orders cannot be entertained. He further submitted that petitioner has been adjusted on his original plot according to his share as such claim set up by the petitioner cannot be entertained. He submitted that all the four chaks proposed to petitioner were on his original holdings as such no interference is required against the impugned orders passed by the consolidation authorities. He further submitted that private respondents are also original tenure holder of plot in question, as such there is no illegality in the impugned orders passed by the consolidation authorities. He submitted that petitioner filed a restoration application before Deputy Director of Consolidation stating that he should be allotted his original plot No.82/18 and 82/20 while petitioner had already been allotted chak on plot No.82/18 according to his share as far as possible as such no further interference is required against the impugned orders. He submitted that consolidation authorities have taken into consideration the original agricultural holding of the parties, road side plot and source of irrigation for allotment of chak, as such there is no illegality in the impugned order passed by the consolidation authorities. He submitted that writ petition filed on behalf of petitioner should be dismissed.

5. C.H. Form 23 of the private respondents are not annexed along with the writ petition accordingly learned counsel for the private respondents placed the same before the Court which was taken on record on 13.05.2025.

6. I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

7. There is no dispute about the fact that chak objection, chak appeal and chak revision filed by petitioner has been decided by consolidation officer, Settlement officer of consolidation and Deputy Director of Consolidation under the impugned orders adjusting the chak of the petitioner as well as private respondents.

8. Perusal of the C.H. Form 23 of the petitioner as well as private respondents, copy of the orders passed by consolidation authorities as well as pleadings set up in the writ petition demonstrate that petitioner as well as private respondents have been adjusted on their original agricultural plot, original road side plot considering the source of irrigation, as such there can be no further interference by this Court against the impugned orders passed in the allotment of chak proceeding. The record further demonstrate that petitioner has been adjusted on his original road side plot also in which private respondents have also share who have also been adjusted over the same according to their share, as such no further interference is required in the matter in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the constitution of India.

9.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. 219

Raghuvansh 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.

10. 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."

11. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, no interference is required against the impugned orders passed by Consolidation authorities in the allotment of chak proceedings.

12. Petitioner has also challenged the order dated 27.03.2025 passed by Consolidation Officer under Section 9-A (2) of U.P.C.H. Act which cannot be entertaiend rather the same can be challenged in appropriate proceeding.

13. The writ petition is dismissed.

Order Date :- 26.5.2025

PS*