Court No. - 36
Case :- WRIT - B No. - 3317 of 2018 Petitioner :- Babu Ram Respondent :- D.D.C. Azamgarh And 9 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- J.P. Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Amrendra Nath Rai,Bhawesh Pratap Singh,Sanjay Singh
Hon'ble Mrs. Sunita Agarwal,J.
By means of the present petition, the chak arrangement made by the Consolidation authorities are under challenge on the ground that the petitioner has been deprived of his valuable land in plot no.116 wherein he was having 1/4th share.
There is no dispute about the fact that the contesting respondent no.4 is co-tenure holder of the plot in question.
Both the petitioner and respondent no.4 has been provided chak comprising of plot no.116 as per their shares. The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the share of the petitioner in plot no.116 comes to 0.251 hectares whereas he has been provided only an area of 0.247 hectares by the Assistant Consolidation Officer. The reduction of area in the valuable plot in Gata no.116 was not justifiable. Moreover, a portion of plot no.116 has been provided as 'Udan chak' to the wife of respondent no.4 namely the respondent no.5.
On a query made by the Court that there was a minor difference of area in the plot no.116 wherein the petitioner was having his share, it is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is aggrieved by the fact that he was not provided road side land.
Reliance is placed upon the judgement of this Court in the case of Ram Chandar Vs. Deputy Director of Consolidation, Varanasi & others reported in 2006 (100) RD 212 to submit that as far as possible, the Consolidation authorities cannot deprived a land holder of his valuable holding. The road side land having high value of commercial nature may not be included in the consolidation and if so, equal share be provided to each tenure holder.
In rebuttal, learned counsel for the respondent no.4 has invited attention of the Court to page no.'69' of the paper book which is a sketch map of sector 5 wherein the chak of the petitioner and respondent are situated.
This position as disclosed in the map is admitted to both the parties. A perusal of the said map indicates that a portion of plot no.116 was allotted to petitioner chak holder no.203 and his brothers chak holder no.247 etc. Similarly another portion of the same plot has been allotted to chak holder no.488 Surya Mukhi wife of Yudhisthir, i.e. who was mother of the petitioner. The portion of plot no.116 which has been given in the chak of chak holder no.488 is adjacent to the main road. A perusal of CH form 23 of chak holder no.488 indicates that plot no.116 was not plot of original holding of the said chak holder.
It appears that the petitioner has succeeded in getting the chaks adjusted in such a manner that the 'Udan chak' of chak holder no.488 his mother was adjusted in plot no.116, besides the petitioner has been given an area of plot no.116 in the ratio of his share in the said plot. The question as to how the plot no.116 has been given in the chak of chak holder no.488 could not be answered by learned counsel for the petitioner.
Chak holder No.488 died in the year 2011 and the holding of the said chak holder has been devolved upon the petitioner. As a result of it, the chak of the petitioner is now adjusted in such a manner that a larger area of plot no.116 having road side frontage has been included in the chak of the petitioner.
From the fact noted above, it is more than apparent that the petitioner has got his share in plot no.116 as also in other plots nos.114 and 115 which are plots of original holding of the petitioner and his brothers. A portion of plot no.116 has been allotted in the share of the mother of the petitioner though it was not her original holding.
In view thereof, this Court finds that the petitioner cannot be said to be aggrieved by the chak arrangement made by consolidation authorities.
In so far as the respondent no.4 is concerned, he is also a co- sharer of plot no.116. There is no dispute about the extent of his share allotted in the said plot. In so far as the chak of respondent no.5 is concerned, it appears that she was adjusted in the said plot being wife of respondent no.4 looking to convenience of the land holder.
For all the above noted reasons, this Court does not find any justification to interfere.
The writ petition is found devoid of merits and hence dismissed. Order Date :- 30.3.2018 Himanshu