Ram Kumar Singh vs D.D.C.

@DELETEUPPERDATA

Ram Surat Ram (Maurya), J.—Heard Sri Vivek Kumar Pandey for the petitioner and Sri Vijyendra Prakash Triapthi for respondent-4. The writ petition has been filed against the order of the Deputy Director of Consolidation dated 30.6.2014 passed in chak allotment matter.

It is stated that Plot Nos. 2993, 2994, 2995, 3000, and 3003 were the original holdings of the petitioner and his other co-sharers. Apart from this Plot Nos. 563, 565 etc. were also the original holding of the petitioner. The petitioner executed a sale-deed dated 13.5.1992 in respect of his share in plot No. 2327. It is stated that although against the proposed chak the petitioner filed an objection but the objection was dismissed by the Consolidation Officer by order dated 3.9.1997. The petitioner remained silent and did not file any appeal within the time allowed under section 21 of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953. The chak matters have already been confirmed. Thereafter Fakeere in whose chak plot Nos. 2999, 3000, 3003 and 3014 were allotted, executed a sale-deed in favour of respondent-4 on 12.6.2007. The petitioner filed a highly time barred appeal on 11.1.2007 against the order of the Consolidation Officer dated 30.9.1997. In the meantime, Fakeere died and his heirs were substituted in his place but neither the petitioner nor the heirs of Fakeere disclosed this fact that the land of plot Nos. 2999, 3000, 3003 and 3014 had already been transferred by Fakeere during his lifetime to respondent-4 and the Settlement Officer Consolidation passed an order allowing the appeal of the petitioner by order dated 29.9.2009. On coming to know about the aforesaid order respondent-4 filed a revision before the Deputy Director of Consolidation. The Deputy Director of Consolidation by the impugned order found that the petitioner has already executed a sale-deed in respect of his share in plot No. 2327 and the chak which has been allotted to the petitioner was on his original holding on plot Nos. 563, 565 etc. The petitioner has not challenged the order of the Consolidation Officer for about 10 years and in the meantime the chaks have already been confirmed. Therefore, Fakeere has transferred the land in favour of respondent-4 and concealing the fact relating to transfer, the appeal was allowed and the chak of respondent-4 has been disturbed without giving any opportunity of hearing to her. It has been further found that chak of Fakeere was allotted on land of low valuation while by the impugned order the Settlement Officer Consolidation has allotted him chak on high valuation land due to which land of respondent-4 has been substantially reduced. On this finding the revision was allowed and the order of the Settlement Officer, Consolidation dated 29.9.2009 was set aside and chaks of the stage of Assistant Consolidation Officer as allotted to the parties were restored. Hence this writ petition has been filed.

The Counsel for the petitioner submits that plot No. 3003 was the original holding of the petitioner in which he has his private source of irrigation. Plot Nos. 3000 and 3003 were the largest part of holding of the petitioner but the petitioner has not been given chak on these plots. The petitioner has filed objection against the proposed consolidation scheme but he could not know about the dismissal of his objection, accordingly, the delay has occurred in filing the appeal. However, the Settlement Officer, Consolidation looking to the fact that plot Nos. 3000 and 3003 were the original holding of the petitioner, allotted chak to the petitioner on these plots and chak has been allotted to Fakeere on plot Nos. 2026 and 2027 and no injury has been caused to him. Accordingly, the Deputy Director of Consolidation has illegally allowed the revision.

I have considered the arguments of the Counsel for the parties and examined the record.

The chak which has been allotted to petitioner on plot Nos. 563 and 565 etc. was on his original holding. After dismissal of the objection the petitioner remained silent about 10 years and it shall be presumed that he was satisfied with the allotment on his original holding. The theory of private source of irrigation, if any, cannot be put in service after expiry of 10 years. In such circumstances the Settlement Officer, Consolidation committed illegality in allowing the appeal of the petitioner although the chak of the petitioner was on his original holding.

It may be mentioned that the petitioner himself executed sale-deed dated 13.5.1992 of plot No. 2327 in favour of Fakeere and the chak which has been allotted on plot Nos. 3000 and 3003 etc. were in the vicinity of the land purchased by him, shall be treated to be fully in accordance with the principles given under section 19 of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953. The Settlement Officer, Consolidation has illegally disturbed the chak of the Fakeere. Fakeere was allotted chak on plot Nos. 2026, 2027 etc. due to which substantial area of Fakeere has been reduced although he is small tenure holder as such substantial justice has been done by the Deputy Director of Consolidation.

Lastly it has been argued by the Counsel for the petitioner that plot Nos. 2026, 2027, 2328 and 2329 was left as bachat land and has been allotted in the chak of Fakeere by the Settlement Officer, Consolidation may be allotted to the petitioner. The petitioner may file an application in this respect before the Deputy Director of Consolidation within a period of one month from today. The Deputy Director of Consolidation after hearing the Land Management Committee shall pass a suitable order in this respect. However, the chak of Fakeere or chak of Sobhana Devi shall not be disturbed. With the aforesaid observation the writ petition is disposed of.