Patiraj (deed.) through L.R. vs Dy. Director of Consolidation and Others

S.P. Srivastava, J.—The Petitioner feels aggrieved by the order of the Deputy Director of Consolidation allowing the revision filed by the Respondent No. 2 Ram Pher filed u/s 48 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act. The revising authority, under the impugned order has, while setting aside the orders passed by the Consolidation Officer and the appellate authority in the matter relating to the adjustments in the chaks of the Petitioner and the contesting Respondent No. 2, altered the chaks of the Petitioner.

I have heard the learned Counsel for the Petitioner as well as the learned Counsel representing the contesting Respondent Ram Pher and have also carefully perused the record.

In the proceedings u/s 20 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, an objection had been filed by Ram Pher, the Respondent No. 2 against the chak allotted to Pati Raj, Babu Lal, Mahavir and Rama Shankar praying that the first chak allotted to him on plot Nos. 10, 21, and 22 be allotted to the tenureholders of the plot No. 25 and they be adjusted in plot Nos. 10, 21 and 22. In the alternative, it was prayed that any suitable order may be passed which may be found appropriate and the objector be allotted a single chak. The Consolidation Officer allowed the aforesaid objection to a limited extent excluding from the chak of the objector some area of plot Nos. 21 and 22 and allotting the corresponding area from plot Nos. 42/1 and 30. It was found that the objector had been allotted two chaks which included his original holdings. It was also noticed that Pati Raj and others had been allotted a chak which included their plot No. 25 which constituted their only largest holding wherein a "well" was also situate which was a private source of irrigation. The Consolidation Officer found that the relief claimed by the objector for allotting a chak on plot No. 25 was not at all justified. However, so far as the alternative relief claimed by the objector was concerned, the Consolidation Officer modified the chak allotted to the objector in the light of the prayer made by the objector himself and excluded plot Nos. 21 and 22 from his chak providing the land from other plots.

Being dissatisfied w:''th the adjustment granted by the Consolidation Officer in his chak, the objector Ram Pher preferred an appeal The appeal was, however, dismissed upholding the order passed by the Consolidation Officer. The said order was thereafter challenged in revision which was disposed of vide the order impugned in the present case.

In the impugned order, the Deputy Director of Consolidation has noticed that Ram Pher had requested for the allotment of a single chak over plot Nos. 30 and 42 which constituted his largest holdings. He has specifically noticed in the impugned order that the revisionist Ram Pher had prayed for allotment of a single chak over plot No. 30, etc.

The Deputy Director of Consolidation under the impugned order, ordered drastic changes in the chaks of various tenureholders affecting the chak of the Petitioner in such a manner that the total area of pilot No. 25 which constituted the largest original holding of the Petitioner was taken out from his chak and in its place, he was allotted various portions of plot Nos. 10 and 22.

The learned Counsel for the Petitioner has urged that the impugned alterations directed under the impugned order passed by the revising authority had not only deprived the Petitioner of his largest holding but had also resulted in depriving him of his only source of irrigation which could not be permitted specially in view of the principles enshrined u/s 19 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act. It has further been urged that the Petitioner was a very small tenureholder having a total area of .53 decimal of agricultural holding and while exercising the revisional jurisdiction contemplated u/s 48 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, the discretion concurrently exercised by the Consolidation Officer as well as the Assistant Settlement Officer (Consolidation) while adjusting the equities in the matter relating to the allotment of chaks in the light of the principles underlying Section 19 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, the revising authority ought not to have interfered, specially when, there is no prohibition under the Act in regard to allotment of two chaks in the same sector and the objector had in fact been allotted chaks on his original holdings.

The learned Counsel for the contesting Respondent has tried to support the impugned order asserting that the impugned alterations do not prejudice the Petitioner at all and no case for interference has been made out in the present proceedings,

This Court in its decision in the case of Chandra Pal Singh v. Prem Dutt Rai and Ors. 1980 RD 123, after noticing the various other decisions of this Court, had observed that in view of the provisions contained in the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, it was necessary to allot a chak in a plot where existed the private source of irrigation of the concerned tenureholder and also the largest part of his holding observing that the Legislature had made a clear provision to that effect and allotment of a compact area at the place where a tenureholder holds the largest part of his holding or his private source of irrigation should be as a matter of rule and any departure from it should be only by way of exception. It was further observed that in case of noncompliance with the aforesaid provisions, the consolidation authorities will have to assign good reasons as to why it was not practicable to follow the aforesaid provision pointing out that the consolidation authorities are not invested with arbitrary powers to make any kind of allotment according to their sweet will without any rhyme or reasons. It was also observed that in case a small tenureholder is not allotted a chak where he holds the largest part of his holdings or where exists his private source of irrigation, his fate will be doomed as it would become impossible and impracticable for him to instal tubewell at every small chak. This Court had emphasised that law casts a duty on the consolidation authorities to provide a chak to the chak holder at the plot where he holds the largest part of his holding or his source of irrigation.

In its another decision in the case of Krishna Pratap Singh v. Deputy Director of Consolidation and Ors. 1966 RD 216, this Court clearly pointed out that the, jurisdiction envisaged u/s 48 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act is not akin, to an appellate jurisdiction where it is possible and permissible to enter into questions of fact and reappraise the evidence but this jurisdiction must fall short of the appellate jurisdiction.

The perusal of the orders passed by the Consolidation Officer as affirmed by (he Assistant Settlement Officer (Consolidation) clearly indicate that relevant facts had been taken into account while making the adjustments in the chaks securing that the Petitioner retains his largest part of his holding including his private source of irrigation. I am clearly of the opinion that no ground had been made out which could justify any interference in the allotment of the chak of the Petitioner as affirmed by ''he appellate authority.

Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances brought on record and the ratio of the decisions referred to herein above, sufficient ground has been made out for interference by this Court.

In view of my conclusions indicated herein above, this writ petition succeeds and the impugned order passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation, a true copy of which has been filed as Annexure-4 to the writ petition is quashed.

There shall, however, be no order as to costs.