Kamleshwar (Dead) vs Deputy Director of Consolidation and others

S.K. Singh, J.—Case was taken up in the revision of the list.

Heard Sri C.K. Rai, learned Advocate in support of this petition and Sri Bipin Bihari, learned Advocate who appears for the respondent.

Challenge in this petition is the judgment of the Deputy Director of Consolidation and Settlement Officer Consolidation by which changes have been made in the chak of the parties.

Proceedings are under section 20 of U.P.C.H. Act which relates to the allotment of plots in the chak of the parties. In these proceedings this Court is to see that whether the last Court while adjusting the chak of the parties has considered the matter in accordance with law and whether there is any violation of section 19 of the U.P.C.H. Act.

Submission of learned Counsel for the petitioner is that petitioner is small tenure holder having only three plots as his original holding i.e. Plot No. 83/1, 83/4 and 83/5 and at the stage of Assistant Consolidation Officer although no chak was given to the petitioner on these plots but on adjoining plots i.e. Plot No. 81/2, 81/3 and 82/3 chak was proposed to which petitioner was satisfied as that allotment was adjoining to the petitioner''s original holding near goen land and also near the land/chak of his nephew and as petitioner had private source of irrigation/boring also in plot No. 83 and thus no objection was filed. Other side filed objection before the Consolidation Officer and that was rejected. Appeal was filed by the respondent which is allowed without considering petitioner''s claim and by the adjustment so made petitioner was given complete Udan Chak on plot No. 357 that is far away from Abadi and the source of irrigation. Revision filed by the petitioner was wrongly dismissed without considering petitioner''s hardship. It is further submitted that Deputy Director of Consolidation has taken double standard in the matter. It was observed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation that other side is to be given goen land and that is to be applied to the petitioner also. Observation of the Deputy Director of Consolidation that under unavoidable situation petitioner was given chak over plot No. 357 is totally misconceived as over the original plots of the petitioner nephews of the petitioner were given chak and petitioner was adjusted over the adjoining plots keeping in mind the chak of their relations and source of irrigation, and therefore it was obligatory on the part of the Deputy Director of Consolidation to have considered the inconvenience and hardship of the petitioner, but the revision has been dismissed in most routine and arbitrary manner. Submission is that on these premises this Court is to interfere.

In response to the aforesaid, Sri Bipin Bihari, learned Advocate submits that as original plots of the petitioner has been allowed in the chak of the nephew of petitioner there cannot be any legitimate claim of a particular allotment and if the Deputy Director of Consolidation dismissed the revision filed by the petitioner by recording a finding that allotment to the respondent is on goen land then no exception can be taken to it. Submission is that these are allotment of chak proceedings in which no right of the petitioner is being taken away, and therefore, slight inconvenience and discomfort may not be a ground to% set aside the order of the Deputy Director of Consolidation.

In view of the aforesaid, this Court is to decide the claim of the parties.

There is no dispute about the fact that petitioner was not proposed any chak on his original holding but there is also no dispute about the fact that he was proposed chak on the adjoining plots. Over the plots over which petitioner was given chak the relation of the petitioner has been adjusted, Source of irrigation is claimed to be over the plots which are in the chak of the relations of the petitioner. At the appellate stage petitioner has been shifted to plot No. 357 which is admittedly away from Abadi and goen land and for that plot petitioner claims to have no irrigation facility. Although chak of the petitioner which was earlier proposed was Udan and after adjustment by the appellate authority is also Udan but the claim of the petitioner is that so far the chak which was proposed to the petitioner on plot No. 81 and 82 are concerned that was to the advantage of the petitioner from all corners i.e. having irrigation facility, being near to his original plots, Abadi and his relations but now on account of placement on plot No. 357 all the aforesaid situation goes and that makes all kind of inconvenience and hardship to the petitioner. Neither appellate authority nor Deputy Director of Consolidation has applied their mind to these situations and inconvenience/hardship which has been so pleaded and argued and they in a routine manner allowed the appeal and revision on account of which petitioner claims prejudice.

On the facts, this Court is convinced that besides there being violation of section 19 of U.P.C.H. Act, if petitioner''s contention is accepted, that may be a case of injustice also but this is all dependent on fresh examination of the claim of petitioner qua respondent. Appellate authority and revisional Court has decided the claim between the two parties and therefore, they were required to attend/deal with the hardship of both sides. On remittance of the matter to the revisional Court now Deputy Director of Consolidation will apply its mind to the convenience/hardship of both sides and if so required after making spot inspection he is to maintain equity between the parties and that will be in the ends of justice.

For the reasons given above, this petition succeeds and is allowed. Impugned judgment passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation is hereby quashed. Deputy Director of Consolidation is directed to revive the revision to its original number and decide the same in accordance with law after giving adequate opportunity to all concerned preferably within a period of four months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order from either of the sides.