Court No. - 8
Case :- WRIT - B No. - 31388 of 2005 Petitioner :- Amar Singh Respondent :- D.D.C. & Another Counsel for Petitioner :- Ayub Khan Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,A.K. Gupta,Desh Raj Singh,R.K.Dubey,S.K. Yadav,Umesh Vats
Hon'ble Salil Kumar Rai,J.
1. Heard Shri Ayub Khan, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Umesh Vats learned counsel for respondent No. 2.
2. In the present case, the petitioner and respondent No. 2 are brothers and co-tenure holders. Plot No. 95 was the original holding of petitioner and respondent No. 2. During the consolidation proceedings in the village a part of plot No. 95 was reserved for General Abadi. The petitioner filed an application dated 22.11.2002 under Section 9-A(2) of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as, 'Act, 1953') before the Consolidation Officer praying that General Abadi be removed from Plot No. 95 and an equivalent portion of it be reserved on Plot No. 112/1. The aforesaid application was allowed by the Consolidation Officer vide its order dated 22.12.2002. Subsequently, petitioner filed objection on 18.10.2002 before the Consolidation Officer praying that he may be allotted a larger portion of Plot No. 95 in the Chak consisting of the aforesaid plot by reducing an equivalent portion from Plot No. 213. The aforesaid demand of the petitioner was accepted by the Consolidation Officer through its order dated 29.1.2003. In the meantime, respondent No. 2 filed an Appeal before the Settlement Officer of Consolidation (hereinafter referred to as, 'S.O.C') stating that the arrangement of Chaks at the level of Consolidation Officer was unjust to him as his Chak on Plot No. 95, which was initially adjacent to the road, has been removed from the road. The said appeal was registered as Appeal No. 1056. The aforesaid appeal filed by respondent No. 2 was dismissed by the S.O.C vide its order dated 1.5.2003.
3. Aggrieved by the order dated 29.1.2003 and 1.5.2003, respondent No. 2 filed a Revision before respondent No. 1- Deputy Director of Consolidation, Moradabad (hereinafter referred to as, 'D.D.C') stating that initially petitioner and respondent No. 2 had their Chaks adjacent to the road, but subsequently Chak of respondent No. 2 has been altered and respondent No. 2 has no Chak adjacent to the road. The said Revision was registered as Revision No. 185/267/733. The D.D.C. allowed the aforesaid Revision vide his order dated 15.3.2005 and re-arranged the Chaks of Plot No. 95 in a manner that both petitioner and respondent No. 2 got Chaks adjacent to the road. The order dated 15.3.2005 passed by the D.D.C. has been challenged in the present writ petition.
4. Contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner was not aggrieved by the order dated 29.1.2003 passed by Consolidation Officer and therefore Appeal No. 1056 as well as Revision No. 185/267/733 filed by respondent No. 2 against the order dated 29.1.2003 was not maintainable. It has been further contended by counsel for petitioner that respondent No. 2 was allotted a Chak on Plot No. 95 by the Consolidation Officer and there was no reason for respondent No. 1 to disturb the arrangement of Chak as made by the Consolidation Officer.
5. Rebutting the argument of counsel for petitioner, counsel for respondent No. 2 has argued that order of respondent No. 1 is according to law and the arrangement of Chaks made by respondent No. 1 vide his impugned order dated 15.3.2005 is an equitable arrangement whereby both the petitioner and respondent No. 2 had been allotted Chaks adjacent to the road.
6. I have perused the record and considered the rival submissions of learned counsel for the parties.
7. A perusal of impugned order dated 15.3.2005 passed by D.D.C. in Revision No. 185/267/733 shows that the D.D.C. has allotted Chaks to the petitioner and respondent No. 2 in a manner whereby both the parties have Chaks on Plot No. 95 adjacent to the road. It has not been denied by the petitioner in the present writ petition that Chak allotted to respondent No. 2 on Plot No. 95 previous to the impugned order dated 15.3.2005 passed by the D.D.C. was not adjacent to the road. In the writ petition the petitioner has also not denied the claim of respondent No. 2 made before the Appellate as well as Revisional court that initially petitioner and respondent No. 2 had their Chaks on Plot No. 95 adjacent to the road. In the aforesaid circumstance, the arrangement of Chak as made by D.D.C. vide his impugned order dated 15.3.2005 is an equitable arrangement especially in the circumstance the petitioner and respondent No. 2 were co-tenure holders of Plot No. 95. The petitioner has not been able to show that the impugned order dated 15.3.2005 passed by the D.D.C. violates any of the requirements prescribed under Section 19 of Act, 1953.
8. In the aforesaid circumstances, I do not find any illegality in the impugned order dated 15.3.2005 passed by respondent No. 1 so as to exercise the equitable and extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The writ petition lacks merit and is accordingly dismissed.
9. Interim order, if any, stands vacated.
Order Date :- 26.2.2018 Anurag/-