A supplementary affidavit filed today is taken on record.
This writ petition was heard thrice and the matter was adjourned earlier to enable the learned counsel for the parties to assist the Court with the aid of certified copy of the Chak map as well as the other documents relating to the allotment of the plots about which the dispute has been raised.
Today after the matter was heard, Sri A.P. Tiwari, learned counsel for the respondent nos. 4 to 8 submits that he does not propose to file any counter affidavit and the matter be disposed of finally on the basis of the records that are available.
Learned counsel for the respondent nos. 1, 2 and 3 has also adopted the same arguments.
The dispute relates to the allotment of chaks at the stage of Section 20 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953. The chequered history of the case has already been detailed in the writ petition and need not be reproduced again. The limited controversy that has now arisen stands narrowed down after hearing the learned counsel for the parties, which is to the effect as to whether the claim of allotment of the petitioners over plot nos. 274 and 275 is valid or not.
After the arguments were advanced what transpires is that the plot nos. 274 and 275 are the original holdings of the petitioners. On the other hand, the respondents have their original holdings over plot nos. 270 and 271. They claimed that plot nos. 274 and 275 was earmarked as Bachat. The claim of the petitioners that the said plots be kept chakout had already been rejected and the plots have been valued. The petitioners were allotted different plots including plot no. 577.
The contesting respondents claimed that since plot nos. 274 and 275 were earmarked as Bachat, and continued to be their original holding they were entitled for allotment of the said plots as that would facilitate their cultivation bringing their chaks nearer to their house. It is this issue which was raised and the matter was contested between the parties.
When the matter ultimately arrived at the level of the Deputy Director of Consolidation in the last round of litigation, the contesting respondents appear to have filed an objection, and in paragraph 10 thereof they categorically setup a case that equities have been adjusted, inasmuch as, the petitioners have already been allotted roadside land over plot no. 577, and since plot nos. 524 and 525 are contiguous holdings to the plots of the respondents, in such a situation, the petitioners do not have any right to claim any allotment over plot nos. 274 and 275.
The Deputy Director of Consolidation has proceeded to decide the revision holding that so far as the allotment of plots in favour of the respondents is concerned, the same makes the area compact with allotment over plot nos. 274 and 275 which is nearer to their original holdings and that the contesting respondents are equitably compensated.
Having heard learned counsel for the parties, it is evident that the aforesaid issue relating to the equitable adjustment of roadside land as claimed has not been adhered to by the Deputy Director of Consolidation at all. The petitioners contend that they have been given allotment over plot no. 577, which is almost one kilometer away from the hamlet of the village and, therefore, they have been ousted from their valuable land, which could not have been allotted to them instead of plot nos. 274 and 275 which were even otherwise their original holdings.
A perusal of the impugned order, therefore, does not indicate any reflection on this issue raised between the parties, in spite of the fact that the respondents had raised their objection with regard to the same in paragraph 10 of the objection. In view of this limited nature of dispute having left to be resolved, the impugned order dated 4th February 2011 is set aside with a direction to the Deputy Director of Consolidation to make a spot inspection and thereafter proceed to decide the matter in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible in the light of the observation made herein above within a period of three months from the date of presentation of a certified copy of this order before him.
The writ petition is allowed.
Order Date :- 24.3.2011 Akv