Court No. - 9
Case :- WRIT - B No. - 37906 of 2007 Petitioner :- Guljar And Others Respondent :- Addl. District Magistrate Finance/Revenue/D.D.C. And Others Counsel for Petitioner :- H.M. Srivastava,M.S.Chauhan,O.N. Mishra,S.C. Rai Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Faujdar Rai,Rajesh Maurya,Sheo Ram Singh
Hon'ble Jayant Banerji,J.
Heard Shri M.S. Chauhan, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri C.K. Rai, learned counsel appearing for the respondent nos. 4, 5 and 6. Learned Standing Counsel appears for the respondent nos. 1, 2 and 3.
This writ petition has been filed with the following prayers:
"a. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the Order dated 07.06.2007 in Revision No. 8 - Guljar & others Vs. Shiv Pujan & others- and Order dated 14.06.2007 in Revision No. 73- Guljar & others Vs. Smt. Saida Bano & others - passed by Respondent No.1 (Annexure No. 9 & 10) and order dated 16.12.1999 and 29.06.1999 passed by respondent no. 2 filed as Annexure No. 7 & 8 and order dated 21.12.1996 passed by respondent no. 3 filed as Annexure No. 5.
b. Issue a Writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to purpose chak on the original holding."
In the writ petition it is stated that the petitioners are chak holders of chak no. 547 comprising of plot no. 406, 407 and 409. It is stated that 407 is on the roadside having more commercial value. The respondent nos. 4, Shiv Pujan, was holder of chak no. 768 having original holding of plot no. 380M. The respondent no. 5, Smt. Saida Bano, was the holder of chak no. 857 having original holding of plot no. 406. The aforesaid respondents have been allotted udan chak over plot no. 407. The father of the petitioners filed an objection before the Consolidation Officer for removal of chak of respondent nos. 4 and 5 from plot no. 407, which objection was rejected by the Consolidation Officer by means of the order dated 21.12.1996 without assigning any reason. The appeal preferred by the petitioners before the Settlement Officer Consolidation under Section 21 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 was dismissed on 29.6.1999. The appeal filed by the respondent no. 5- Smt. Saida Bano was allowed regarding her demand of allotment of chak in 406 towards northern and southern side. It is stated that the petitioner filed two revisions, Revision No. 8 and 73 before the Deputy Director of Consolidation. Revision No. 8 filed by the petitioner was decided against the petitioner without assigning any reason. Another revision filed by Saida Bano as well as Revision No. 73 filed by the petitioners were clubbed together and dismissed on 14.6.2007 without assigning any reason. The learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to the site plan appearing on page no. 22 of the writ petition and has said that Shiv Pujan and Saida Bano have been allotted udan chak on the largest holding of the petitioners being plot no. 407/1. It is his contention that the udan chak is given in the centre of his largest plot no. 407/1 and this allotment has been made without any application of mind because the respondent no. 5, Saida Bano, holder of chak no. 857 has no ingress or egress path to and from her plot and there was no reason for giving that chak to her in the centre of the petitioner's holding. It is stated that the petitioners have been put to great inconvenience and their largest plot has been rendered uncultivable and the balance of convenience lies in their favour.
Countering the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioners, Shri C.K. Rai, learned counsel for the respondent nos. 4, 5 and 6 referred to the counter affidavit and states, while referring to Form No. 23 (Annexure-1 to the writ petition), that a single chak has been given to the petitioners in the same area. Learned counsel has pointed out that there is no change in the area of the holdings allotted to him. It is further contended that the respondents are cultivating the land in dispute and have improved the condition thereof. It is contended that the petitioner has not been completely deprived of his original holding and he has been given his original plots. It is contended that the provisions of Section 19(e) are not mandatory in nature and the petitioner has been accommodated as far as possible by the consolidation authorities by allotting him plots in his original holdings including the largest one. Learned counsel has also relied upon a judgement of this Court dated 11.4.2019 passed in Writ-B No. 21247 of 1993 (Jagdish and others Vs. D.D.C. and others) to state that since the plot in dispute is being cultivated by the respondents since a very long time, the allotment being made in the year 1995 and since then since both the parties are peacefully cultivating their respective area allotted by the consolidation authorities, therefore, it would be in the interest of justice not to disturb the allotment.
A perusal of C.H. Form No. 23 reveals that the original area of the holdings of the petitioner was 1.448 and the proposed area allotted was 1.472. Moreover, plot nos. 406, 407 and 409 appear both in column no. 6 and 19 of C.H. Form No. 23. As far as plot no. 407 is concerned, an area of 527 Kadi has been allotted to him. The site plan appearing in page 22 of the paper book reveals that plot no. 407/3, 407/5 have been kept out of consolidation proceedings and a by-pass road has been constructed on the plot no. 407/4. Towards the north of plot no. 407/3 is a nali (canal) made on the plot no. 407/2. This nali is adjacent to plot no. 407/1 that is allotted to the petitioner. Moreover, on the eastern and western sides of the allotted plot no. 407/1 there is a sector kharanja road and a chak road respectively. Further, the udan chaks on plot no. 407/1 are not in it centre but in a corner. Clause (e) of Section 19 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 provides that every tenure holder shall, as far as possible, be allotted a compact area on the place where he holds the largest part of holding. A perusal of the map and the other documents on record reveals that given the constraints of consolidation proceedings, the interest of the petitioner has been properly addressed.
It is pertinent to mention here that though the interim order dated 16.8.2007 directed staying the petitioners dispossession provided they had already not been dispossessed, the learned counsel for the petitioner has not contested the submission of the learned counsel for the respondent that since 1995, that is, since after the order of the Consolidation Officer, the parties are cultivating their respective areas so allotted. There is no averment to the contrary in the writ petition or in the rejoinder affidavit. Thus it would also be inequitable to dislodge the parties from the allotted plots after such a long period of time. Therefore the orders under challenge deserves no interference.
In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, this revision lacks merit and it is, accordingly, dismissed.
Order Date :- 29.11.2019 A. V. Singh (Jayant Banerji, J.)