Court No. - 9
Case :- WRIT - B No. - 399 of 2019 Petitioner :- Chhotal Respondent :- Deputy Director Of Consolidation And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Navin Kumar Srivastava Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Mahesh Narain Singh
Hon'ble Anjani Kumar Mishra,J.
Heard counsel for the petitioner, Sri Mahesh Narain Singh for the Gaon Sabha and learned Standing Counsel for the State respondents.
No notice has been issued to respondent no.4, neither the said respondent is represented. However, the writ petition is being disposed of without issuing any notice to him. In case the said responent has reasoned to aggrieved by this order, it shall be open for him to file for its recall.
The dispute in the writ petition pertains to plot no.1730/3.
An objection was filed by the petitioner before the Consolidation Officer, which was decided by the order dated 27.09.2013. By this order, the respondent no.4, who was in possession of 0.0180 hectare of plot no.1730/3 and the petitioner, who was in possession of an area of 0.449 hectare of this same sub-plot were adjusted and in the process, plot no.1730/6 area 0.180 hectare was ordered to be recorded in the name of the petitioner.
The order aforesaid was set aside in appeal by the Settlement Officer, Consolidation on the ground that plot no.1730/6 was a land covered by water and was recorded as banjar. Therefore, in view of ratio in the case of Hinch Lal Tiwari, no rights over it could accrue in favour of any tenure holder.
Accordingly, the order passed by the Consolidation Officer was set aside, which order has been affirmed upon dismissal of the revision filed by the petitioner vide order dated 17.01.2019. Hence, this writ petition.
In so far as the reasoning given by the appellate and revisional courts is concerned, the same is perfectly correct and calls for no interference.
However, this Court finds that the dispute in the objection was confined only to plot no.1730/3. From a perusal of the objection/application filed by the petitioner, it transpires that it was alleged therein that over a portion of this plot (area 0.180 hectare), the respondent no.4 was in possession, while the petitioner, admittedly, was in possession over an area of 0.449 hectares of the same plot 1730/3.
Under the circumstances, in case some correction was required, it should have been allowed but only to the extent that plot no.1730/3 should have been divided into two parts, as per the admitted possession of the petitioner and the respondent no.4.
The Consolidation Officer committed manifest illegality in touching also plot no.1730/6, which was not in issue.
Under the circumstances, the impugned orders are hereby affirmed.
However, the matter is remitted back to the Consolidation Officer to pass a fresh order looking into the grievance of the petitioner and if necessary to subdivide plot no.1730/3 into two parts in accordance with the possession of the petitioner and respondent no.4, thereon.
The writ petition stands disposed of subject to the directions/observations as above.
Order Date :- 25.2.2019 Jitendra