Heard Shri Vinod Kumar Singh learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri R.K. Pandey, learned counsel for opposite party no. 2 who appears through caveat. Petitioner, opposite party nos. 2 and 3 the only contesting respondents are 3 of the 6 sons of late Durga Prasad.
This writ petition is directed against the judgment and order dated 31.10.2013 passed by Deputy Director of Consolidation, Amethi in Revision No. 102/67 and 103/68 Janardan Prasad Vs. Anand Krishn and others. Plot no. 1328 belonged to the father of the petitioner, opposite party nos. 2 and 3 and their other 3 brothers. Just adjacent to the said plot is situate plot no. 1329/2 which belonged to other persons. Late Durga Prasad had his Tube well which was probably on the border of both plots in such manner that some part of that was in plot no. 1329/2. Petitioner claimed that original tenure holders of plot no. 1329/2 had permitted him to construct a Kaccha house. However, they formally transferred/ 0.012 hectare land of plot no. 1329/2 to the petitioner through sale deed executed in the year 2009.
The Settlement Officer of Consolidation granted entire plot no. 1329/2 to the petitioner. However, through the impugned order only area of 0.012 hectare of plot no. 1329/2 has been given to the petitioner on which his house exists.
The argument of learned counsel for the petitioner is that firstly Tube well should have been given to him as it belonged to his father and secondly as on 0.012 hectare of plot no. 1329/2 petitioner's house is standing hence the entire plot should have been allotted to the petitioner. Learned counsel further states that rest area of the said plot is being used for tying cattles etc. However as sale deed is of 0.012 hectare hence petitioner's claim over rest of the plot can not be accepted. The argument that the land adjacent to the house should have been allotted to the petitioner can also not be accepted as there is no hard and fast rule that the land adjacent to the house shall necessarily be given to the person who owns the house.
However, I do not agree in the least with the reasoning given by the D.D.C. Amethi for not giving Tube well to the petitioner that he had only daughters, such approach shows gender bias.
In any case Tube well which belonged to late Durga Prasad can not be divided into 6 parts among his 6 sons, it has to be given to one of the sons in partition.
Accordingly, the impugned order is maintained but on the condition that petitioner to whom the tube well has been given shall pay Rs. 15,000/- as damages/compensation to the petitioner. A draft of this amount drawn in the name of the petitioner payable at Amethi shall be deposited before the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Amethi, by the petitioner within 2 months which shall immediately be handed over to the petitioner. Until deposit of such amount operation of the impugned order shall remain stayed and on deposit being made the impugned order shall at once be impleaded.
With the aforesaid observation writ petition is disposed of.
Order Date :- 30.1.2014 Deepak