Chandrika vs Collector/District D.D.C. and Others

Ram Surat Ram (Maurya), J.—Heard Sri P.N. Tripathi, for the petitioner and Sri Tripathi B.G. Bhai, for respondent-2. The writ petition has been filed for quashing the order of District Deputy Director of Consolidation, dated 31.7.2013, passed in chak allotment proceeding under U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as the Act).

Ram Nayan (respondent-2) (chak-124) was proposed his chak on plot Nos. 60, 61 and 62, by Assistant Consolidation Officer. Chandrika (the petitioner) (chak-35) filed a time barred objection (registered as Case No. 163) u/s 20 of the Act, for allotment of his chak on plot Nos. 60, 61 and 62. The Consolidation Officer, Sonupar, Basti by order dated 13.7.2011 allowed the objection of the petitioner and allotted plot Nos. 60, 61 and 62 in the chak of the petitioner and plot Nos. 107 and 108 which were earlier allotted in the chak of petitioner, were allotted to respondent-2.

Respondent-2 filed an appeal (registered as Appeal No. 812). In the appeal, the petitioner filed a cross-objection, stating therein that plot Nos. 60, 61 and 62 were the original holdings of Rajitram, Sachchidanand, Malti and Raghav. Under a compromise, these plots were allotted to the petitioner as these plots were situated near the abadi and required by the petitioner for keeping his khaliyan. The appeal was heard by Settlement Officer Consolidation, Basti, who by order dated 5.3.2012, dismissed the appeal.

Respondent-2 filed a revision (registered as Revision No. 18/2245). The revision was heard by District Deputy Director of Consolidation (respondent-1), who by dated 31.7.2013 found that plot Nos. 60, 61 and 62 were the original holdings of Rajitram, Sachchidanand, Malti and Raghav, on which Ram Nayan (respondent-2) was proposed an ''uran'' chak. Plot Nos. 107 and 108 were the original holdings of the petitioner, on which he was proposed his chak. The Consolidation Officer has arbitrarily allotted the original holdings of the petitioner to respondent-2, allotting both of them uran chaks. Sachchidanand and others had no right to enter into any compromise with the petitioner for allotment of plot Nos. 60, 61 and 62, in his chak, as their objection has already been dismissed by the Consolidation Officer. The Consolidation Officer allotted an ''uran'' chak to respondent-2, on plot 107 and 108, which was the original holdings of the petitioner. On these findings the revision was allowed and the chaks of the petitioner and respondent-2, of the stage of Assistant Consolidation Officer have been restored.

The Counsel for the petitioner submitted that plot Nos. 60, 61 and 62 were the original holdings of Rajitram, Sachchidanand, Malti and Raghav. These plots situated near the abadi and required by the petitioner for keeping his khaliyan. Under a compromise with its original tenure holders, these plots were allotted to the petitioner. Sachchidanand also filed his affidavit before respondent-1, stating therein for allotment of these plots to the petitioner. These plots are not the original holdings of respondent-2 as such he had no right to claim his chak on these plots, particularly when the original tenure holders entered into a compromise with the petitioner for allotment of this plot to him. Respondent-1 has illegally set aside the orders of two subordinate authorities, without giving any reason. In supplementary-affidavit filed by the petitioner, it has been stated that plot Nos. 60, 61 and 62 were adjacent to the road and in the north of the road, village abadi is situated, in which the house of the petitioner is situated and these plots are near to the house of the petitioner.

I have considered the arguments of the Counsel for the parties. In the map filed by both the parties, plot No. 31 is adjacent to the road, in its northern side, which was purchased by father of respondent-2, and respondent-2 has constructed his house on it. In the southern side of the house of respondent-2, plot Nos. 60, 61 and 62 were situated adjacent to the road. Thus these plots are in front of house of respondent-2. The village abadi is situated in plot No. 28, in which house of the petitioner is situated in extreme north. The petitioner has never stated that these plots were in front of his house. He only demanded these plots for keeping his khaliyan over it. The house comes within the terms ''other improvement'' as mentioned u/s 19(1)(f) of the Act. As such allotment of these plots in the chak of respondent-2, was in consonance of the principles as given u/s 19(1)(f) of the Act. The Consolidation Officer has not given any reason for allotting these plots to the petitioner.

Plot Nos. 107 and 108 were the original holdings of the petitioner. The petitioner was rightly proposed his chak on his original holding by Assistant Consolidation Officer. The Consolidation Officer allotted an uran chak to the petitioner on plots 60, 61 and 62 and at the same time allotted an uran chak to respondent-2 on plots 107 and 108. Thus the order of Consolidation Officer was not based upon any reason and is arbitrary.

Respondent-1 found that Sachchidanand and others were given their valuation on their original holdings and they had no right to enter into any compromise with the petitioner for allotment of plots 60, 61 and 62. The chaks are carved out according to the principles as given u/s 19 of the Act and not on the basis of any concession of a tenure holder. The order of respondent-1 does not suffer from any illegality and no interference is required by this Court. In view of the aforesaid discussions, the writ petition has no merit and is dismissed.