Reserved Court No. - 10 Case :- CONSOLIDATION No. - 5983 of 1984 Petitioner :- Ram Baran Respondent :- D.D.C And Ors Petitioner Counsel :- A.S.Chaudhry Respondent Counsel :- C.S.C,P.V.Chaudhary Hon'ble Yogendra Kumar Sangal,J.
This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner Ram Baran to
issue writ of certiorari quashing the order dated 29.11.1984 passed
by learned Deputy Director of Consolidation, Faizabad contained
in Annexure-6 of the writ petition.
Heard learned counsel for the parties, learned standing counsel for
the State respondent No. 1 and perused the record.
During the consolidation operation in the Village Mohassinpur,
Pargana Haveli Avadh, Tehsil District Faizabad, CH Map 23 was
distributed showing the petitioner’s original plots No. 165, 441 and
178. Assistant Consolidation Officer proposed three chaks of the
petitioner, first at Plot No. 441/2; second at Plot No. 178 and 179
and third at Plot No. 165, 164, 189 and 166. Case of the petitioner
was that in the east Plot No. 165 after chak-road his tube-well and
house lies. As there was deficiency in the valuation of 10 annas so
he raised objections which were decided by the consolidation
officer.
Against the order of consolidation officer, no appeal was filed by
the petitioner but other tenure holders filed three separate appeals
numbered as 789, 790 and 817. One Appeal No. 817 filed by
opposite party No. 2 Bhagirathi (now dead) and represented
through respondent No. 4 relates to the land of petitioner to Plot
No. 165. This appeal was partly allowed by the Settlement Officer
of Consolidation (for short, ‘S.O.C.’). Appeal No. 790 was
dismissed and Appeal No. 789 was allowed in toto. As petitioner
was not affected by the order in the appeal, he has not filed any
revision but three revisions numbered as 1535 filed by Dukhi,
1591 filed by Gurudeen and 1617 filed by Bhagirathi against the
appellate courts order. Learned Deputy Director of Consolidation
(for short, ‘D.D.C.’) respondent No. 1 as per arguments of learned
counsel for the petitioner, without assigning any reason amended
the chak of the petitioner as shown by Red and Green lines in
Annexure-4 of the petition. Area shown by Red lines was of his
chak No. 160 upto the stage of learned S.O.C. whereas the Green
line area shows position of the chak of the petitioner allotted by
the respondent No. 1. Learned D.D.C. has taken out 12 biswas and
12 biswansis land from the land of the chak of the petitioner from
his original Plot No. 165. This land was just in front of the house
of the petitioner and the same was allotted to the respondent No. 2
Bhagirathi to give cause of further litigation. Spot was not
inspected by the learned D.D.C. before passing the impugned
order and no reason has been assigned to disturb the chak of the
petitioner so he prayed for its quashing. Counter affidavit was filed
by the respondent No. 2 Bhagirathi supporting the order of learned
D.D.C. and denying the correctness of the facts given in the writ
petition. A rejoinder affidavit was also filed by the petitioner.
Learned counsel for the respondents argued that respondent No. 2
Bhagirathi (since deceased) in his counter-affidavit had stated that
he had placed his grievance before the appellate authority against
the order of consolidation officer saying that since beginning it
was his case that portion of land lying in front of his house of the
land of Plot No. 165 should be allotted to him.
It was further argued that it was the case of respondent No. 2
before learned D.D.C. that the land of Shiv Narayan son of
Bhagirathi is also there near the land of Plot No. 165, it will be
more convenient for both of them if part of the land of Plot No.
165 is allotted in his chak. So taking into consideration the
grievance of the respondent No. 2 after taking out only 12 biswas
and 12 biswansis land from the Plot No. 165 having total area of
more than 8 bigha, this adjustment was made by the learned
D.D.C. under the provisions of Section 19 of the U.P.
Consolidation and Holdings Act. It was further argued by the
learned counsel for the respondents that minor change has been
made in the chak of petitioner that is small portion of the land
having an area of 12 biswas and 12 biswansis was taken and in lieu
of that petitioner has been allotted the remaining land of Plot No.
165 which is his original land and thus, the petitioner still retains
almost the entire area of Plot No. 165 having an area of more than
8 bigha. Learned counsel for the petitioner had not denied the
correctness of this fact that except this land of 12 biswas and 12
biswansis rest land of Plot No. 165 is allotted in his chak. It was
further contended that the order of learned D.D.C. cannot be said
without any reason. Annexure-4 of the writ petition filed by the
petitioner itself shows that taking some area from the land of Plot
No. 165 from one side the adjacent land was allotted to the
petitioner of the other side and no measure change has been made.
Although petitioner had claimed that the portion of the land
allotted to the respondent No. 2 by learned D.D.C. is in front of his
residential house but correctness of the same was challenged by
the respondent in his affidavit. Nothing on record was pointed out
on behalf of the petitioner to support his this plea during the course
of arguments. Moreover record shows that except this small
portion of the land of Plot No. 165 rest total land of this plot is
allotted to the petitioner which satisfied his need that his chak
should be nearby his residential house and source of irrigation of
the land.
It is correct that spot inspection was not made by learned D.D.C.
before making the aforesaid arrangement but it was in discretion of
the learned D.D.C. whether spot inspection was to be made or not.
If he was satisfied from the record of the case and he has not seen
the necessity of making the spot inspection, it will not materially
affect his impugned findings. There is no provision in the
Consolidation and Holdings Act or Rule where the local inspection
is mandatory for the learned D.D.C. Respondent No. 2 in his
counter affidavit had claimed that the main door of his house is
towards the land which was allotted to him by the learned D.D.C.,
not denied on behalf of the petitioner. Allotment of small strip of
land to him from the Plot No. 165 did not materially affect and
prejudice in any way to the petitioner in the facts and
circumstances of the case. In passing the impugned order every
aspect of the matter and the relevant record was seen by the
learned D.D.C. What irreparable injury he will suffer by the
allotment of this strip of land to the respondent No. 2 not
sufficiently explained. Petitioner should not expect under the
provisions of law that every inch of the land of original plot should
be allotted to him. In allotment of the plots in consolidation
proceedings both the parties can never be satisfied by the
authorities. Court is to see whether provision of Section 19 of the
Act has been complied or not keeping case of both the parties in its
mind.
Grievance of both the parties were taken into consideration by the
final authority in the consolidation proceedings i.e. respondent No.
1 learned D.D.C. in case of allotments of the chaks. In
consolidation proceedings dispute for generation are to be settled.
From the facts and circumstances of the case, I am also of the view
that no substantial injury will be caused to the petitioner by
allotment of this small portion of the land of Plot No. 165 to the
respondent No. 2. Petition is devoid on merit and has no force,
therefore, no interference in writ jurisdiction is required in the
matter. Accordingly the same is hereby dismissed. Stay order, if
any, granted by this Court shall automatically stand vacated.
Order Date :- 5.7.2010
Rakesh