Uttarakhand High Court
WPMS/1407/2021 on 19 May, 2022
Office Notes,
reports, orders or
SL. proceedings or
Date COURT'S OR JUDGES'S ORDERS
No directions and
Registrar's order
with Signatures
WPMS No. 1407 of 2021
Hon'ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.
Mr. Anshu Kumar, Advocate for the
petitioner.
Mr. Yogesh Chandra Tiwari, Standing
Counsel for the State.
Mr. Tapan Singh, Advocate for
respondent nos. 7, 8, 9 and 11.
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
Assistant Consolidation Officer had
published provisional consolidation scheme,
however no objection was filed within given
time, therefore the scheme become final.
Subsequently, petitioner filed a time
barred objection with delay condonation
application before the Consolidation Officer
contending that in his Gata No. 70/3, two
sheesham trees and one jamun tree, all
more than 20 years old, are standing, which
have gone in the chak to respondent nos. 7
to 11. Regarding Gata No. 111/2, it was
contended by petitioner that the chak
allotted to him is far removed from the
road, while his original holding was on the
road. The said objection was rejected on
merit after condoning delay, vide order
dated 24.06.2019.
Petitioner thereafter filed appeal
before Settlement Officer, Consolidation,
which was partly allowed and land
comprised in Gata Nos. 70/3 and 70/5 was
taken out from the chak allotted to private
respondents and it was added in the chak
allotted to the petitioner.
Being dissatisfied with the order
passed by Settlement Officer, Conslidation,
petitioner filed revision under Section 48 of
the Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1962,
which was partly allowed by Deputy Director
of Consolidation, Haridwar vide judgment
dated 04.02.2021.
Perusal of the order passed by Deputy
Director indicates that the medh
(demarcation line) between the chak
allotted to petitioner and private
respondents was ordered to be straightened
as per the amended table.
Feeling aggrieved by the order passed
by Deputy Director, Consolidation,
petitioner has filed this writ petition. The
orders passed by Consolidation Officer and
Settlement Officer, Consolidation have not
been challenged.
Heard learned counsel for the parties
and perused the record.
Section 19 (1) (g) of U.P.
Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953, reads
as hereunder:-
"19. Conditions to be fulfilled by a
Consolidation Scheme.-(1) ..................
(g) every tenure-holder is, as far as
possible, allotted chaks in conformity with the
process of rectangulation in rectangulation
units."
Perusal of the impugned order reveals
that Revisional Authority has made effort
towards rectangulation of chak allotted to
petitioner as well as private respondents, by
straightening the Medh (demarcation line)
between the chaks allotted to them.
Learned counsel for the private
respondent points out that in fact, area of
the chak allotted to petitioner is more than
the area of his original holding. He submits
that area of original holding of petitioner
was 1 bigha 18 biswansi; while, area of
chak allotted to him after consolidation is 1
bigha and 1 biswa.
Learned Standing Counsel supports
the submission made on behalf of private
respondents.
Since the Revisional Authority has
attempted to rectangulate the chaks allotted
to the petitioner as well as private
respondents without disturbing area of the
chak of petitioner, therefore, this Court does
not find any reason to interfere with the
order passed by Revisional Authority.
Accordingly, writ petition fails and is
dismissed.
(Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.)
19.05.2022
Shubham
`
