Harpal Singh vs Joint Director of Consolidation and others

S.K. Singh, J.—Heard Sri Triveni Shanker and Sri HOK Srivastava, learned advocate in support of this petition and Sri Satya Prakash, learned advocate who appeared for the respondents.

Challenge in this petition is the judgment of the Deputy Director, Consolidation by which, revision filed by respondents No. 2 to 6 has been allowed and necessary changes in the chak of the parties have been made.

Proceedings are under section 20 of U.P.H.C. Act which is in respect to allotment of plots in the chak of parties. Needless to say that in these proceedings both parties can never be satisfied as it is not possible to accept the claim of both sides in its entirety and thus, approach of the Court is to see that whether there is any violation of section 19 of U.P.C.H. Act or petitioner can be said to have suffered any serious prejudice calling for interference in the equity jurisdiction of this Court.

Against proposed allotment, an objection was filed by petitioner''s side objecting allotment of three chaks on which, the Consolidation Officer allowed objection and made, number of chak of petitioner from three to two. Appeals were filed by respondents No. 2 and 6 which were dismissed. Thereafter, respondents went in revision in which, they got success and thus, order of Revisional Court is under challenge before this Court.

Submission of learned Counsel for petitioner is that the Deputy Director, Consolidation has affected changes without assigning any good reason and without considering petitioners claim/hardship/ inconvenience which the petitioner is to suffer and in fact, revision has been allowed even against the claim/demand of the revisionist. Argument is that in respect to plot No. 381, there was no demand from revisionist but even then, that has been taken out from the petitioner''s chak and in fact, entire placement from petitioner''s chak of plot Nos. 381, 384 and 385, on an area of 0155 has been taken out in lieu there of an area of 0616 only has been given on account of which, petitioner has suffered serious prejudice. It is further submitted that petitioner is also cosharer of plot No. 378 which is road side land but, the petitioner was given chak over other plots No. 381 and 384 etc. which are also road side land and thus, petitioner was satisfied by placement at one place or the other in respect to road aside land but now, in view of changes which has been made by the Deputy Director, Consolidation road side placement has been taken away which has further caused more prejudice to the petitioner. Argument is that petitioner has been given chak by the Deputy Director, on plot No. 395 which is in the same sector where his other chak is there and that is not permissible. Lastly, it has been submitted that if the ground taken by respondents in respect to plot No. 378 was accepted to be a valid ground then that applies for the petitioner also as petitioner happens to be cosharer of that plot and therefore, adjustment made by the Deputy Director, Consolidation by which neither petitioner is placed over plot No. 378 nor his chak has been retained over other plots which can be equated at part of that plot, it can be said to be prejudicial to the interest of petitioner, calling for interference by this Court. Submission is that changes has caused serious prejudice and therefore, Court is to interfere.

In response to the aforesaid submission, Sri Prakash, learned Counsel submits that it is not a title dispute and it is not a matter where any right/title of the petitioner has been taken away. This is simply a case of adjustment of chak i.e. Allotment of particular chak and in these proceedings, if the claim of one is accepted, then other is to feel discomfort and adjustment cannot be according to need/claim of both sides and therefore, unless there is serious violation of mandate of section 19 of UPCH Act, this Court cannot interfere. Submission is that if the petitioner has been given chak over plot No. 595 which is also his original holding, of good quality, then on technical submission, two chaks being in the same sector or some loss on account of shifting from plot No. 381 etc. no intervention can be there. Lastly, it is pointed out that in 1987 itself delivery of possession has been taken place and therefore, now if any intervention is made that will cause injustice to the respondents side.

Learned Counsel for the petitioner in response to the last submission of Sri Prakash about delivery of possession submits that proceedings of delivery of possession was set at knot by a detailed order passed by the Deputy Director, Consolidation and thus, submission of delivery of possession is incorrect and by virtue of interim order, parties are at the stage of appellate authority and therefore, on the facts and submission as made, this Court has to interfere.

In view of aforesaid submission, this Court has to decide the matter.

There is no dispute about the fact that on the objection filed by petitioners side, Consolidation Officer made changes and the number of chaks of petitioner was formed as two. Appeal filed by respondent was dismissed. At the Revisional stage, chak of the petitioner was affected. There is further no dispute about the fact that entry of petitioner as cosharer in plot No. 378 is there. Admittedly, petitioner has not been given any chak on plot No. 378 which is said to be road side land, but in any view of the matter, petitioner was satisfied by placement over plot Nos. 381, 384 and 385 etc. which is also claimed to be the road side land. By adjustment so made by the Deputy Director, Consolidation, chak given to the petitioner over plot No. 381 and 384 etc. (0195) has been completely taken away in lieu thereof, chak has been given over plot No. 595 which although is the original holding of the petitioner but certainly is not road side land and that is situated in the same sector also about which there is technical submission that according to the norms as provided in consolidation manual, two chaks in the same sector is not normally permitted. Deputy Director, Consolidation has assigned only one reason for allowing revision which is to the effect that plot No. 378 is the original holding of the revisionist. Although grant of particular original holding of a tenure holder/chak holder is not under the mandate of section 19 of UPCH Act, as the mandate is regarding largest part of original holding but on the facts, it may be desirable that particular plot is to be given in the chak of that party. Even then while doing so, claim of other side and consequential changes will have to be analysed and will have to be kept in mind. If the plot No. 378 was required to be given in the chak of revisionist, then what was the occasion/reason to shift petitioner from placement over plot Nos. 381 and 384 etc., was required to be dealt with as the land which was in the chak of petitioner was road side land which is claimed to be in consonance of plot No. 378 which happens to be original holding of petitioner. Strong reason was required to be given before dislodging petitioner from that chak. Deputy Director, Consolidation or any Court decides the matter pending before him at least between two parties and thus, it is required that claim/concern of both will have to be taken care and will have to be dealt with. Decision/claim cannot be one sided and on just asking of claimant. A balance will have to be struck of. Perusal of the judgment of the Deputy Director, Consolidation convinces this Court that revision has been allowed on just mere asking of revisionist and that too not strictly in accordance with their demand but in any case, without considering hardship which the petitioner claims to have suffered as stated in the writ petition as conveyed to this Court during course of argument. If there is placement of road side land then special care is to be taken in the matter. On the facts, this Court is satisfied that approach of the Revisional Court was quite arbitrary, whimsical and thus required consideration not being there, matter will have to be attended afresh and if so required after making spot inspection after giving proper notice to both sides. Balance in respect to allotment of road side land will have to be made besides other consideration. Thus, in view of analysis made above, this Court is of the view that the petitioner has made out a case for interference under equity jurisdiction of this Court.

Accordingly, this petition succeeds and is allowed. Impugned judgment of Revisional Court is hereby quashed. Now, Revisional Court is to revive the revision for fresh decision, without being influenced by any of the observation, if it has come in this judgment, after giving adequate opportunity of hearing to both sides, preferably within a period of four months from the date of presentation of a certified copy of this order.