Court No. - 5
Case :- WRIT - B No. - 3679 of 2018 Petitioner :- Mahendra Respondent :- D.D.C. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ravish Chandra Srivastava Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Manoj Kumar Yadav,Shailendra Kumar Singh
Hon'ble Pradeep Kumar Singh Baghel,J.
The petitioner has preferred this writ petition for issuance of a writ of Certiorari to quash the order dated 5.3.2018 passed by the Deputy Director, Consolidation (D.D.C.) whereby he has allowed the revision of the contesting respondent and set aside the order of Consolidation Officer. The D.D.C. has found that by alteration in Chak only 0.1/4 dismal land is affected.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has produced before me a certified copy of map and I am satisfied that the findings of the D.D.C. is correct as the shape of the petitioner's land remains rectangular even after the change is made. He submits that by alteration of chak 8 feet of land of usar/ banzar will be part of the petitioner's land.
Be that as it may, matter relates to correction of map as found by the D.D.C. the said correction will not cause any prejudice to the petitioner as it affects a very small negligible area.
I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel, Sri Shailendra Kumar Singh, learned Advocate who has put in appearance on behalf of respondent no. 2 and Sri Manoj Kumar Yadav, learned Advocate who has accepted notices on behalf of Gaon Sabha.
After hearing both the parties, I am satisfied that the order of the D.D.C. does not warrant any interference under Article 226 of the Constitution. I decline to interfere in the matter as it is a very petty matter and relates to only 8 feet of the land. Admittedly, the land which has been allotted to the petitioner has not been reduced hence no prejudice will be caused to him.
The Supreme Court in recent cases has observed that the High Courts should curb the tendency to file petitions on petty matters as there is huge pendency of cases and important cases are becoming infructuous due to lack of time as the Courts are busy in small and trivial matters. Reference may be made to the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Phool Chandra and another v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2014) 13 SCC 112.
For the reasons mentioned above, I do not find any good ground to interfere in the matter. The writ petition stands dismissed.
No order as to costs.
Order Date :- 26.4.2018 Digamber