Court No. - 21
Case :- WRIT - B No. - 1086 of 2021 Petitioner :- Chandra Dev And Another Respondent :- Deputy Director Of Consolidation And 5 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Anil Kumar Chaudhary Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Dinesh Pathak,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Standing counsel for the State-respondents.
The instant writ petition has been filed to invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dated 9.4.2021 passed by Deputy Director of Consolidation (in brevity 'D.D.C.') (respondent no. 1) and order dated 28.2.2017 passed by Consolidation Officer (in brevity 'C.O.') (respondent no. 2).
Dispute giving rise to this writ petition relates to the Chak allotment proceeding. In Provisional Consolidation Scheme, petitioners have been allotted chak no.912 at two places. First chak was proposed on Plot No. 560/2 etc. and second Chak was proposed on Plot No. 1067/1. Likewise contesting respondents Moti Chand and others have allotted chak No. 467.
Grievance of the petitioners is that the D.D.C. has illegally disturbed the chak of the petitioners and in place of plot no. 560/2, 562/1 and 562/3, they have been alloted chak over Plot No. 556/2 and 556/3, which is again situated far away from their source of irrigation, as it was earlier proposed at the stage of A.C.O.
Counsel for the petitioners submits that feeling aggrieved with respect to the placement of first chak, petitioners have filed an objection under Section 20 of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (in brevity 'U.P.C.H. Act') stating therein that plot no.
556 had been fragmented in three parts, out of which their source of irrigation is situated over Plot No. 556/1 and the remaining Plot No. 556/3 is situated towards east side of the canal, therefore, their chak may be allotted from Plot No. 556/3 towards the western side near their source of irrigation over Plot No. 556/1.
C.O. has partly allowed the objection filed by the petitioners vide order dated 28.2.2017, granting them little area i.e. 0.250 hectare over Plot No. 556/1. Being not fully satisfied with the order passed by the C.O., the present petitioners have preferred an appeal before Settlement Officer of Consolidation (in brevity 'S.O.C.') on the new ground that they should be allotted chak over Plot No. 560, 568 and 562 in place of 556/3. S.O.C., vide its order dated 14.12.2018, has partly allowed the appeal filed by the petitioners and allotted their chak over plot no. 562/3 etc. and in lieu thereof maximum portion of Plot no.566/3 has been taken out from the chak of the petitioners. Against the said order, being satisfied, petitioners have not preferred any revision before the D.D.C..
Feeling aggrieved against the order of S.O.C., one Moti Chand and others i.e. respondent nos. 3 to 6 have preferred two revisions. First Revision No. 266/225 of 2021 was filed against the order dated 14.12.2018 passed by the S.O.C. and second Revision No. 181/245 of 2021 was preferred against the State with respect to the chak road. D.D.C. vide its order dated 9.4.2021 has dismissed the Revision No. 181/245 of 2021 but partly allowed the Revision No. 266/225 of 2021, which is under challenge before this Hon'ble Court.
Perused the record in the light of submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner. It emerged that during Provisional Consolidation Scheme petitioner has been proposed Chat No. 912 at two places. First Chak was allotted over Plot No. 560/2, 561/1, 561/3 and 556/3 and second Chak was proposed over Plot No. 1067. Record further reveals that Plot No. 556/3 is largest original holding, measuring area 0.649 hectare. Accordingly, he has been proposed first chak including Plot No. 556/3 which is his largest holding.
Before the C.O., petitioners have shown their grievances that they had their source of irrigation (boring) over Plot No. 556/1, therefore, he may be allotted larger area including Plot No. 556/1. They have shown their inconvenience due to allotment of Plot no.556/3, which is situated towards the East side of the canal whereas 556/1 is situated West side of the canal.
C.O., while partly allowing the objection of petitioners vide order dated 28.2.2017, has allotted Plot No. 556/1 area 0.250 hectares etc. which is evident from the amended chart appended to the order of C.O. (Annexure No. 3). Being not satisfied , the petitioners have preferred appeal with new plea that they may be allotted chak over Plot No. 560, 568 and 562 near to the Plot No. 556/1. S.O.C., vide its order dated 14.12.2018 (Annexure No. 5), has partly allowed the appeal filed by the petitioners by which Plot No. 556/3, 562/3 have been taken out from the chak of the petitioners and in its place, he has been allotted chak over plot no. 560, 562/1, 562/3, 1067 and 1067/2. At the stage of D.D.C., maximum portion of Plot No. 556/3, due to which the present petition was aggrieved, has been taken out by D.D.C. and in its place he has been allotted chak over Plot No. 562/3 etc.
Submission made by the learned counsel with respect to the grievance of the petitioners in the present petition is unfounded. Order passed by the C.O. explicitly reveals that the grievance of the petitioners with respect to allotment of chak over Plot No. 556/1, where their source of irrigation (boring) exists, has satisfactorily been fulfilled. In this view of the matter, original demand regarding the allotment of chak where his source of irrigation exists has been fulfilled.
At appellate stage petitioners have taken second chance and came with the new plea for allotment of chak over plot Nos. 560, 568 and 562 on the ground that these plots are near to Plot No. 556/1 where their source of irrigation situate, therefore, Plot No. 556/3 which has been allotted in the chak of the petitioners, may be taken out and in its place, new chak may be carved out over Plot Nos. 556/1, 560, 562 and 568. In the aforesaid appeal, they have also taken new plea regarding the valuation of plot no.1067/1. Their grievance was again dealt with to some extent at the appellate stage as well and the sufficient portion of plot no. 556/3 has been taken out from their chak and in its place, they have been allotted chak over Plot Nos. 560/2, 562/1, 562/3, 1067/1 and 1067/2.
D.D.C. has not much disturbed the chak of the petitioners as grievance shown by them. Amended chart appended to the order passed by D.D.C. reveals that Plot Nos. 560/2, 562/1 and 562/3 has been taken out from the chak of the petitioners and in its place Plot nos.556/2 and 562/3 have been given to them. Out of the aforesaid proposed plots, Plot No. 556/2 is the original holding of the petitioners.
In this conspectus as above, I do not find any substance in the statement made by the learned counsel for the petitioners. No much difference occurred in the allotment of chak in pursuance of the order passed by the D.D.C.. Learned counsel for the petitioners has failed to point out violation of any conditions as enshrined under Section 19 of U.P.C.H. Act for the preparation of provisional consolidation scheme. Initially petitioners have hammered their objection for the allotment of Plot No. 556/1 wherein their source of irrigation (boring) was situated. Simultaneously, they have also demanded the surroundings area of plot no. 556/1 to facilitate their farming. Their demand qua allotment of chak over the plot where their source of irrigation situate, has been fulfilled by the C.O.. Even their new plea taken in the appeal, filed against the order passed by the C.O., has also been satisfied to the maximum extent.
The object of the U.P.C.H. Act is to allot a compact area in lieu of scattered plots to the tenure holder to facilitate their cultivation but, on the same time, it is not always possible to allot the entire area at one place/over one plot on the wishes of the chak holder. There is no glaring violation of the conditions to be fulfilled as enunciated under Section 19 of the U.P.C.H. Act for the purposes of preparation of provisional consolidation scheme.
I do not find any illegality, perversity or error in the order passed by the D.D.C. warranting the indulgence of this Court in exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
The present writ petition is devoid of merits. Accordingly, it is dismissed with no costs.
Order Date :- 29.7.2021 A.P. Pandey/Manish Himwan