Ujagar vs Dy. Director of Consolidation and Another

Ram Surat Ram (Maurya), J.—Heard Sri Rama Shankar Mishra, for the petitioner and Sri M.P. Singh Gaur, for the respondents. The writ petition has been filed against the order of Deputy Director of Consolidation, dated 10.9.2013, passed in chak allotment proceedings under U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act-1953 (hereinafter referred to as the Act).

Plot Nos. 81, 91/4, 91/5, 91/6, 124, 125, 126, 129, 143, 146, 147, 151, 154, 155, 156, 159, 160/1, 160/2, 166, 219 and 220 of village Gangpur Pukhta, pargana Ujhani, district Badaun were the original holdings of the petitioner and Rajendra Singh (respondent-2), in which the petitioner and Rajendra Singh both have 1/12 share. It may be mentioned that these plots were recorded in basic consolidation year khatas 17 and 18. Apart from it, the petitioner has 1/6 share and Rajendra Singh has 1/12 share in the land of khatas 9 and 10. The petitioner was proposed one chak on plots 144, 145, 146, 219, 220 and 221/3 of the area 0.484 hectare. Rajendra Singh (respondent-2) was proposed two chaks, i.e. first chak was proposed on plots 90/3, 90/5, 228/2, 228/3, 227/1, 227/3 and 227/4 of the area 0.208 hectare and second chak was proposed on plots 146, 147, 151, 152, 214/1, 217, 218 and 230/1 of the area of 0.531 hectare. The dispute between the parties is in respect of allotment of the chak on plot No. 146, in which the petitioner and respondent-2 both have 1/12 share. The Consolidation Officer, by order dated 7.2.2013, partly modified the chak of the petitioner by taking an area of 0.156 hectare from his chak and allotting it in chak No. 164 of Bhagwan Singh Sahab and same area was taken from the chak of Bhagwan Singh Sahab and allotted in the chak of the petitioner. It appears that the proposed chak of respondent-2 was not affected by Consolidation Officer.

The petitioner filed an appeal (registered as Appeal No. 54) claiming his chak on plot Nos. 146 and 147. Bhagwan Singh Sahab filed an appeal (registered as Appeal No. 59) claiming his chak of the stage of Assistant Consolidation Officer. Both the appeals were consolidated and heard by Settlement Officer Consolidation, Badaun, who by order dated 6.4.2013 held that Ujagar was cultivating the land of plot No. 146 in west-north side, where he has also planted his trees and the tab of government tube-well was also existing there. On these findings, the appeal of Bhagwan Singh Sahab was dismissed and the appeal of the petitioner has been allowed. By this order, part of plot Nos. 146, 147, 151, 152, 218 and 230 which were earlier allotted in the chak of respondents have been allotted in the chak of the petitioner. Thus northern portion of the chak of respondent-2 was allotted in the chak of the petitioner and southern portion of the chak of the petitioner has been allotted in the chak of respondent-2.

Rajendra Singh (respondent-2) filed a revision (registered as Revision No. 451), from the aforesaid order. The Deputy Director of Consolidation, after spot inspection and hearing the parties, by order dated 10.9.2013, found that Rajendra Singh was cultivating plot No. 146 in east-north side and sheesham trees were planted by him. Plot No. 219 was also the original holdings of Ujagar and his family members, who has planted uqiliptus trees, in the southern side of plot No. 146. On these findings, the revision has been partly allowed and on the basis of the previous possession of the parties an area of 0.259 hectare [from northern portion of plot Nos. 146, 151 total 152 (area 0.040 hectare) and from southern side of plots 218 and 230 (area 0.219 hectare)] have taken from the chak of the petitioner and allotted in the chak of respondent-2. In lieu of it, the petitioner has been allotted in northern side of plot Nos. 144, 145 and 146 (total area 0.154 hectare) and in the southern side of plots 219 area 0.099 hectare. Hence this writ petition has been filed.

The Counsel for the petitioner submitted that Settlement Officer Consolidation, after spot inspection, found that the petitioner had planted the trees and had private source of irrigation in the west-north side of plot No. 146, where he had been in possession in private partition between the co-sharers. Total 55 trees of sheesham, neem, babul and jamun were standing in the west-north side of the petitioner. Deputy Director of Consolidation has illegally held that sheesham trees belonged to respondent-2. Respondent-1 has not prepared any spot inspection memo and has not provided any opportunity of objection and hearing against his spot inspection and recorded findings on the basis of conjectures and surmises. Allotment of the chak to respondent-2 on plot No. 146 amount to allotment of an uran chak on the original holdings of the petitioner. The petitioner has 1/6 share in plot No. 146 as such he was rightly allotted chak on this plot. In the memorandum of the appeal the petitioner has specifically raised the ground that southern portion after plot No. 146 was uneven and infertile land but respondent-1 has illegally allotted the southern portion. Due to allotment made by respondent-1, valuable trees of the petitioner have been allotted in the chak of respondent-2. The order of Deputy Director of Consolidation is illegal and liable to be set aside.

I have considered the arguments of the parties and examined the record. Here it may be noted that allegations of the petitioner that he has 1/6 in plot No. 146 and respondent-1 has not prepared spot inspection memo are false. A perusal of CH Form-23 of the petitioner filed as Annexure-4 to the writ petition shows that plot No. 146 was the holding of khata 17, in which the petitioner has 1/12 share. On page 32 of the writ petition, the amalda-ramads relate to khata Nos. 9 and 10. On its basis, the petitioner tried to mislead the Court that he has 1/6 share in plot No. 146. Total area of plot No. 146 is 0.367 hectare. Thus in the share of the petitioner only an area of 0.0305 hectare comes. Thus the allegations that trees planted in the entire west-north portion of plot No. 146 belonged to the petitioner is not liable to be accepted. Photostat copy of the certified copy of the spot inspection memo prepared by Deputy Director of Consolidation has been filed an Annexure-CA-2. In the Rejoinder Affidavit, the petitioner has not denied, the fact relating to the preparation of spot inspection memo and its availability on the record. Thus false allegations have been made in the writ petition.

As stated above, Deputy Director of Consolidation has taken northern portion of plot Nos. 146, 151 total 152 {area 0.040 hectare) and in the southern portion of plots 218 and 230 (area 0.219 hectare) from the chak of the petitioner and allotted in the chak of respondent-2. In lieu of it, the petitioner has been allotted in northern portion of plot Nos. 144, 145 and 146 (total area 0.154 hectare) and in the southern portion of plot 219 area 0.099 hectare. Thus, in the northern side, an area of 0.040 hectare has been deducted from the chak of the petitioner and in lieu of it he has been allotted 0.154 hectare. Deputy Director of Consolidation has merely made the chak of the petitioner and respondent-2 in the rectangular form and allotted the sheesham trees of respondent-2 in his chak, who has also 1/12 share in plot No. 146. Plot No. 219 is also the original holding of the petitioner, as such allotment of a portion of this plot in the chak of the petitioner is not illegal. In view of the aforesaid discussion, there is no illegality in the impugned order. The writ petition has no merit and is dismissed.