Inamullah and Others vs Deputy Director of Consolidation and Others

Amreshwar Pratap Sahi, J.—I have heard Sri M.D. Singh Shekhar, learned Senior Counsel along with Sri R.K. Sahi, Advocate for the Petitioners and Sri K.R. Sirohi, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Juned Alam and Sri B.K. Mishra, for the Respondent Nos. 4 to 8.

This dispute relates to allotment of Chaks, proceedings whereof arose with the objections being filed u/s 20 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953.

Learned Counsel had. sought adjournment on 15th March, 2011 for assisting the Court along with the certified copies of the Chak maps and CH Form 23 as also any other information relating to the dispute arising out of the proceedings.

The challenge is to the revisional order passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation dated 30.12.2010 and one of the grounds taken before this Court is that several disputes were decided together and in one such matter this Court has already interfered in Writ Petition 16075 of 2011 (Ram Naresh and Anr. v. Deputy Director of Consolidation, Kushinagar and Ors.) and the operation of the very same order of the Deputy Director of Consolidation dated 30.12.2010 had been stayed. A copy of the interim order passed by this Court in the aforesaid writ petition dated 17.3.2011 has been placed through a supplementary affidavit.

Before proceeding to address to the controversy raised in this writ petition, it would be necessary to clarify that Writ Petition No. 16075 of 2011 was a dispute relating to a new Chak being allotted to the Petitioners therein which was half the area of the original holding that resulted in fragmentation and allotment of more Chaks, which was against the consolidation scheme. That was done without putting them to notice at the instance of Mohd. Hussain. In the opinion of the Court, the said dispute relates to the tiny nature of holdings and further fragmentation resulting in reshaping of the Chaks, which was against the scheme. The same in no way has any bearing on the issues raised herein between the Petitioners and the contesting Respondents. Accordingly, this Court is of the opinion that this writ petition does not deserve to be clubbed with the said dispute as it is entirely different.

Coming to the submissions raised, learned Counsel for the Petitioners contends that there was no occasion to have rendered the holdings as claimed by the contesting Respondents to be Chakout in order to readjust the Respondents, and further this readjustment by the Deputy Director of Consolidation has been brought about the formation of one more Chak to the Petitioners thereby increasing it from 3 to 4. It is further submitted that access to plot No. 519, which is now the holding of the answering Respondents, is being blocked due to the nature of allotment made to the Petitioners and the 4th Chak which has been allotted is of a lesser value.

It is further submitted that the allotment which existed in favour of the Petitioners was keeping in view the neighbourhood of the other holdings of the Petitioners and, therefore, the Deputy Director of Consolidation has committed a manifest error by passing the impugned order.

The matter had been adjourned as noted above and the learned Counsel have produced the certified copies of the Chak maps and also CH From 23 to substantiate their submissions.

Sri K.R. Sirohi, learned Senior Counsel for the contesting Respondents contends that as a matter of fact, the Deputy Director of Consolidation has restored the valuable land of the contesting Respondents, which was in close proximity to the road and quite near to the inhabited area, and as such this valuable roadside land of the answering Respondents having been restored, the impugned order does not require any interference.

After the matter was heard at length and after having perused the CH Form 23, it is evident that plot No. 599 was not the original holding of the Petitioners. Apart from this, so far as, the plot No. 517/2 is concerned, the answering Respondents have been allotted their shares along with the contesting Respondents as was earlier done thereby restoring the Northern and Southern part in the respective shares of the Petitioners and contesting Respondents. This plot is in close proximity to the road that is indicated in the undisputed Chak maps. The contention of the contesting Respondents, therefore, appears to be correct that equities have been adjusted and the Petitioners have been given their holding over plot Nos. 496 and 499, which is also a roadside land.

In such a situation, the deprivation of the contesting Respondents has been equitably restored and, therefore, in the opinion of the Court, the contentions raised by the Petitioners cannot be accepted.

The submission of the learned Counsel for the Petitioners that such a restoration could not have been possible on the basis of restoring the land as Chakout in view of the bar contained in section 11-A, also does not deserve any interference, inasmuch as, even if, it is presumed that the land could not have been kept out of consolidation operation at a subsequent stage, yet the allotment could still be made in order to adjust equities. Even if the land was valued, still the contesting Respondents would continue to have a right to claim allotment over their original holdings including plot No. 517 keeping in view the proximity of the land to the roadside.

One of the arguments raised by the Petitioners that their access to plot No. 519 IS blocked is patently misconceived as no material has been shown as to how their access is being blocked.

Accordingly, this writ petition has absolutely no merits and is hereby dismissed as none of the arguments raised are sustainable.