AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Ram Surat Ram (Maurya), J.—The petitioners have filed this application for impleadment of Satveer (Chak 473), Tejpal (Chak 170), Ranveer (Chak 360), and Dushyant (Chak 177) as respondents in the writ petition and prayed for amendment of the prayer clause of the writ petition, seeking relief of quashing the order of Consolidation Officer dated 16.9.2011 and order of Settlement Officer Consolidation dated 9.1.2012. As the petitioners have not filed any revision against the order of Settlement Officer Consolidation dated 9.1.2012, as such, the chaks allotted to Satveer (Chak 473), Tejpal (Chak 170), Ranveer (Chak 360), and Dushyant (Chak 177) were confirmed. In exercise of supervisory jurisdiction, it is not proper for this Court to re-open the disputes relating to allotment of chaks which have become final. Accordingly, the impleadment/amendment application cannot be allowed and is liable to be rejected. The impleadment/amendment application is rejected.
Heard Sri S.K. Pundir for the petitioners and Sri R.P. Singh, for the respondents.
The writ petition has been filed against the order of Deputy Director of Consolidation dated 13.11.2013 passed in chak allotment proceedings under U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as the Act).
Plots. 119, 243 and 244 were the original holdings of the petitioners. During consolidation, an area of 0.120 hectare of plot 244/2 was left as chak out and total area of 3.507 hectare of the original holdings of the petitioners, were included in chak allotment proceeding. The petitioners were allotted chak 516 and a single chak on plots. 55, 243 and 244 of an area of 3.214 hectare was proposed. The petitioners filed an objection (registered as Case No. 65), u/s 20 of the Act, claiming for allotment of his chak on his original holdings, which were valued at the rate of 80 paisa. It has been alleged in the objection that they had been allotted land of the valuation of 90 paisa, as such, area of the chak has been reduced. In this objection, Ompal, Amanpal and Ravindra sons of Kalu (chak 61), were arrayed as opposite parties. It may be mentioned that an area of 0.310 hectare of plot 244/1 was allotted in the chak of Satveer (Chak 473), an area of 0.270 hectare of plot 244/1 was allotted in the chak of Tejpal Singh (Chak 170), an area of 0.440 hectare of plot 244/1 was allotted in the chak of Ranveer (Chak 360), an area of 0.120 hectare of plot 244/1 was allotted in the chak of Dushyant (Chak 177) and some area of plot 244/1 was allotted in chak 167 but these chak holders were not arrayed as party by the petitioners in their objection.
The Consolidation Officer heard the objection of the petitioners along with other chak objections of the village, who by order dated 16.9.2011, found that the demand of the petitioners was genuine and they were entitled for allotment of chak on plot 244, which was their original holding. However, in the amendment chart attached to the order of Consolidation Officer, apart from plot 244, the petitioners were allotted plot 237, which on the spot is lying on the other side of the road and were the original holding of respondents-2 and 3, although they were neither arrayed as opposite parties in the objection of the petitioners nor any demand was made for allotment of plot 237.
Smt. Harkali (respondent-2) and Chandrapal (respondent-3), both filed separate appeals from the order of Consolidation Officer. The petitioners also filed an appeal from the order of Consolidation Officer, in which, they for the first time, impleaded Tejpal (chak 170), Ranveer (chak 360) and Satveer (chak 473), Dushyant (chak 177) and Ompal and Amanpal (chak 69) as opposite parties in the appeal. Tejpal (chak 170) and Ompal and Amanpal (chak 69) also filed appeals. The appeal of the petitioners as well as respondents-2 and 3 were consolidated along with other chak appeals and were heard by Settlement Officer, Consolidation, Saharanpur, who by order dated 9.1.2012, held that plot 237 was original holdings of Smt. Harkali in which her tube well was existing, as such, she was allotted chak on plot 237 due to which the chak of the petitioners was also affected and some area of plots 55, 237, 244 and 246 were taken from their chak and in lieu of it, they were allotted plots 242, 237, etc. The area of plots 55, 237, 244 and 246 which were taken from the chak of the petitioners, were again allotted in chaks 167, 170, 177, 360 and 473. The appeal of Chandrapal was dismissed.
The petitioners did not file any revision against the aforesaid order. However, respondents-2 and 3 filed revisions, which were consolidated and decided by Deputy Director of Consolidation, who by order dated 13.11.2013 held that Harkali (respondent-2) was proposed three chaks, as such, her third chak on plot 454 was liable to be deleted and she was entitled for allotment of valuation on her original holding on plot 237, which would make the shape of her chak as rectangular and adjacent to the chak of her son Chandrapal. On these finding, the revision was allowed, in which, an area of 0.716 hectares of plot 237 was taken from the chak of the petitioners and allotted in the chak of Harkali and Chandrapal and the petitioners were allotted an uran chak on plots 84, 85 and 242. Hence, this writ petition has been filed.
After filing of the writ petition, the petitioners filed an application for impleadment of Satveer (Chak 473), Tejpal (Chak 170), Ranveer (Chak 360), and Dushyant (Chak 177) as the respondents in the writ petition and prayed for amendment of the prayer clause of the writ petition, seeking relief of quashing the order of Consolidation Officer dated 16.9.2011 and order of Settlement Officer Consolidation dated 9.1.2012. As the petitioners have not filed any revision against the order of Settlement Officer Consolidation dated 9.1.2012, as such, the chaks allotted to Satveer (Chak 473), Tejpal (Chak 170), Ranveer (Chak 360), and Dushyant (Chak 177) were confirmed. In exercise of supervisory jurisdiction, it is not proper for this Court to re-open the disputes relating to allotment of chaks which have become final. Accordingly, the impleadment application as well as the amendment application cannot be allowed and are liable to be rejected.
The Counsel for the petitioners submits that plot 244 was the largest part of original holding of the petitioners. They also have their private source of irrigation on plot 244/2. The petitioners were entitled for a single chak of compact area on plot 244. The consolidation authorities allotted three chaks to the petitioners and the chak which is now allotted by Deputy Director of Consolidation on plots 84 and 85 is a totally uran chak and at a long distance from their original holding. In this way, material injustice has been caused to the petitioners by Deputy Director of Consolidation, who has passed the impugned order without considering the grievance of the petitioners. Settlement Officer, Consolidation satisfied the demand of respondent-2, but Deputy Director of Consolidation has again allowed the revision of respondent-2 and disturbed the chak of the petitioners, without looking to the hardship caused to the petitioners. He submits that entire records were summoned by Deputy Director of Consolidation, as such, he should have adjusted the equities between the parties and the demand of the petitioners, which was raised at the initial stage of Consolidation Officer, ought to have been accepted. The impugned order is illegal and is liable to be set aside and the matter is required to be remanded to Consolidation Officer for deciding the objection of the petitioners afresh.
I have considered the arguments of Counsel for the petitioners and examined the record. Assistant Consolidation Officer proposed a single chak to the petitioners on Plots 55, 243 and 244/1. Plot No. 244/2 (area 0.120 hectare), in which the source of irrigation of the petitioners is existing, was left as chak out on the spot. The chak map attached as Annexure-12 to the writ petition shows that the chak of the petitioners was carved out taking entire area from east upto their tube-well in west. Total reduction of the area of the proposed chak was about 10%, in which about 5% was deduction of valuation due to contribution for public purpose. Plot 243 (area 0.348 hectare) was the original holding of the petitioners. However, the petitioners were not satisfied with their proposed chak and they filed an objection before the Consolidation Officer. However, in the objection, the petitioners have not arrayed Tejpal, Ranveer, Satveer and Dushyant (chak holders 170, 360, 473, 167 and 177, in whose chaks, area of plot No. 244/1 were allotted. As such, finding it difficult to satisfy the demand of the petitioners to allot a compact chak on plot 244, the Consolidation Officer, by order dated 16.09.2011 has taken some area of plot 244/1 from chaks. 170, 360, 473 and 177 and a portion on plot 237 was allotted to them, which is situated on the other side of the road. Thus, although the petitioners made a demand for allotment of chak on plot 244/1, but they had not impleaded all the persons to whom it''s area was allotted, as such, their demand could not be satisfied, due to their fault.
In the appeal, the petitioners arrayed these persons as parties, but the Settlement Officer, Consolidation, by order dated 9.1.2012, made changes in between the chaks of Harkali, Chandra-pal, Amanpal and Raj Singh as well as the petitioners and the area of plot 244 which were taken from chaks 167, 170, 360, 473 and 177 were restored to them and their chaks have been confirmed. The order of Settlement Officer, Consolidation has not been challenged by the petitioners. In such circumstances, the chaks of Tejpal, Ranveer, Satveer and Dushyant have become final and without there being any demand against them and without arraying them as party before Deputy Director of Consolidation, it was not proper for him to disturb their chaks.
Deputy Director of Consolidation found that total valuation of Har-kali (respondent-2) was Rs. 137.30, out of which, valuation of Rs. 3.37 was deducted towards public contribution, but she was allotted chak of the valuation of Rs. 109.02. Thus, she was allotted less valuation of Rs. 24.91., which had been completed by the order of Settlement Officer Consolidation, by allotting an uran chak on plot 452. Deputy Director of Consolidation further found that due to allotment of an uran chak to the petitioners in the middle of plot 237, the shape of the chak of Harkali had become irregular and in between the chaks of Harkali and her son Chandrapal, the chak of the petitioners had been allotted. Accordingly, Harkali was allotted chak on her original holding of plot 237, taking it from the chak of the petitioners. In such circumstances. Deputy Director of Consolidation has not committed any illegality in allowing the revision of Harkali.
So far as the argument of Counsel for the petitioners that Deputy Dire for of Consolidation has not considers the grievance of the petitioners is concerned, as the main grievance of the petitioners was allotment of plot 244 which was allotted in the chaks of Tajpal, Satveer, Ranveer and Dushyant, but the petitioners neither challenged the order of Appellate Court, nor these persons were arrayed before Deputy Director of Consolidation. As such, the grievance of the petitioners could not have been considered. Only for the reasons that records were summoned by Deputy Director of Consolidation, it was not proper for him to disturb the chaks of various persons against whom there was no revision, nor they were arrayed as parties in the revision. In case, the petitioners had any intention to claim his chak on plot 244, they would have filed revision. In the absence of any revision by the petitioners, they cannot blame Deputy Director of Consolidation and say that he would have suo moto reopened the entire chak allotment dispute. In such circumstances, there is no illegality in the order of Deputy Director of Consolidation. It is not proper for this Court to re-open the chak allotment dispute, of various chak holders, which have become final, in exercise of supervisory jurisdiction. In the circumstances, no relief can be granted to the petitioners. In view of the aforesaid discussions, the writ petition is dismissed.