Khilari vs Deputy Director of Consolidation, Baghpat and others

Ashok Bhushan, J.—Heard Sri P.K. Singh, learned Counsel for the petitioner, Sri B. Malik, who has appeared for the private respondents and learned Standing Counsel.

Both the writ petitions have been filed challenging the order of Deputy Director of Consolidation dated 20.2.2008 and the order dated 28.12.2004 passed by Settlement Officer of Consolidation. Both the writ petitions arise out of proceedings under section 20 of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953. In writ petition No. 14695 of 2008 supplementary and short counter affidavits have been filed by the parties and it is sufficient to refer the facts and pleadings in writ petition No. 14713 of 2008 for deciding both the writ petitions.

The petitioner Khilari was allotted chak No. 303 over plot Nos. 1068, 1069, 1071, 1070 and 1111. The respondent No. 3 Jaggu was allotted chak No. 441 and respondent No. 4 was allotted chak No. 440. The respondents No. 3, 4 and 5 purchased plot No. 2584 to the extent of 1/3 share. Chak No. 877 was allotted to the respondents Nos. 3, 4 and 5 with regard to plot Nos. 2583, 2584, 2590, 2591. Another sale deed was taken by the respondent No. 3 and 4 with regard to l/1 share in plot No. 2269, 2271 and 2273 of chak No. 93. The objection before the Consolidation Officer was filed by the respondents No. 3 and 4 for adjustment of their 1/2 share on the plot Nos. 2269, 2271 and 2273. The Consolidation Officer rejected the objection by the order dated 13.3.2003. The prayer of petitioners for adjustment of valuation of their chak was rejected, however, the objection was partly allowed by giving chak of bachat land of plot No. 2268 and 2269. The appeal was filed by the respondents against the said order which was allowed by the order dated 28.12.2004. The revision filed by the petitioner against the said order was dismissed on 20th February, 2008.

Learned Counsel for the petitioner contends that objection of the petitioner was with regard to adjustment of plot purchased from chak No. 73, the Settlement Officer of Consolidation exceeded his jurisdiction in directing adjustment of chak No. 877. He further contends that by order of Settlement Officer of Consolidation petitioner Khilari was given plot No. 1128 which was a bachat land whereas said bachat land was subsequently deleted and is not available for allotment.

Learned Counsel appearing for the respondent refuting the submission contends that bachat land on plot No. 1128 was very much available when Settlement Officer of Consolidation passed the order proposing chak of petitioner on plot No. 1128. He further contends that the appellate jurisdiction is wide enough to consider the grievances raised in the appeal with regard to adjustment of chak No. 877 also.

I have considered the submissions of learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record.

The submission on which learned Counsel for the petitioner has much emphasised that the petitioner''s chak on plot No. 1128 allotted by the Settlement Officer of Consolidation cannot be made since bachat land is no more in existence by virtue of setting aside the order dated 28th August, 2004 of Settlement Officer of Consolidation in Appeal No. 620, Paltu v. Anil and others. The order dated 28th August, 2004 has been filed from it is clear that plot No. 1128 from chak of Mahendra Singh was taken out and was given in bachat which is clear from the table appended to the order dated 28th August, 2004. The said order was passed by Settlement Officer of Consolidation modifying the earlier order dated 25th July, 2003 of the Settlement Officer of Consolidation. The Deputy Director of Consolidation in revision against the order dated 28.8.2004 has set aside the order dated 28.8.2004 and restored the order dated 25.7.2003. A writ petition was filed against the revisional order dated 4.2.2005 in this Court being writ petition No. 8277 of 2005 in which order of Deputy Director of Consolidation dated 4.2.2005 was not interfered with and liberty was given to file revision against the order dated 25th July, 2003. It is stated by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that subsequent revision filed was also dismissed and the bachat land is .not available. The order of Settlement Officer of Consolidation in the present case was passed on 28th December, 2004, i.e., subsequent to the order dated 28th August, 2004 passed by Settlement Officer of Consolidation in appeal No. 620 and other connected appeals but after setting aside the order of Settlement Officer of Consolidation dated 28th August, 2004 the plot No. 1128 which was made bachat was also set aside. In view of the aforesaid consequence, subsequent orders passed by Settlement Officer of Consolidation and Deputy Director of Consolidation, has to be looked into by Deputy Director of Consolidation. Sri Malik, although vehemently submitted that bachat land of plot No. 1128 is still existing but instead of giving any finding in this writ petition it is appropriate that the matter be remitted to the Deputy Director of Consolidation for fresh consideration.

In view of the aforesaid order of Deputy Director of Consolidation dated 20th February, 2008 deserves to be quashed and matter is remitted to Deputy Director of Consolidation for deciding the revision afresh. It is made clear that it is open to both the parties to make their respective submission in the revision on all aspect of the matter.

The writ petition No. 14713 of 2008 also deserves to be allowed to the above extent.

In the result both the writ petitions are partly allowed. The order dated 20.2.2008 of Deputy Director of Consolidation is set aside. The revisions No. 28 and 54 are revived before the Deputy Director of Consolidation and be considered and decided afresh by the Deputy Director of Consolidation in accordance with law after hearing both the parties.

Petitions Partly Allowed.