Court No. - 9
Case :- WRIT - B No. - 5842 of 2018 Petitioner :- Mange Ram And 5 Others Respondent :- Deputy Director Of Consolidation And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Javed Husain Khan,Gulrez Khan Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Saurabh Srivastava
Hon'ble Anjani Kumar Mishra,J.
Heard Shri Gulrez Khan for the petitioner and Shri Saurabh Srivastava for the caveator-respondent no. 4.
The dispute in the writ petition pertains to plot no. 348 area 0.152 hectares.
The petitioners filed an objection under Section 9-B of the U.P.C.H. Act, praying that this plot no. 348 be declared chak out as the same was being used as abadi, part of it was parti and the land was not being cultivated. It had been purchased by the petitioners for the purposes of abadi and that this plot had wrongly been valued and included in chak allotment proceedings.
The Consolidation Officer, on 25.01.2016, rejected the objection on the ground that the chak dispute regarding this plot was pending consideration before the High Court. The consequential appeal filed by the petitioners was dismissed, vide order dated 12.06.2018, also on the ground that a writ petition regarding a chak allotment dispute pertaining to this plot was pending consideration before the High Court and additionally that an interim order was operating in the writ petition.
Aggrieved by the orders aforesaid, the petitioner filed revision no. 71. The Deputy Director of Consolidation vide order dated 04.12.2018, has dismissed the revision additionally on the ground that the application to declare the land in question, chak out, was filed after the chaks have been carved out and possession had been delivered over the chaks. Under the circumstances, the objection was barred by stoppel.
The Deputy Director of Consolidation has also observed that the disputed land is lying parti on the spot and is being used for storing cow dung cakes.
Before this Court, the submission of counsel for the petitioner was that the land in question is situated adjacent to the abadi and was therefore liable to be declared chak out and in failing to do so, the courts below have committed manifest illegality.
Shri Saurabh Srivastava, counsel for the respondent, refuting the submissions of counsel for the petitioner has stated that the petitioners have been allotted valuation of the land in question elsewhere. They were retaining possession over the land in issue and, therefore, on an application filed by the respondent no. 4, possession has been delivered to her by the consolidation authorities. He has reiterated the fact that the land in question is not abadi and that the Deputy Director of Consolidation has himself observed that the land in dispute is situated at a distance from the village abadi.
I have considered the submissions made by counsel for the parties and perused the record.
It is not in dispute that the objection to declare the plot in question chak out, was filed after chaks has been carved out and delivery of possession had been effected in the unit. Besides, the contention of counsel for the petitioner is that the land is situated adjacent to the abadi and, therefore, liable to be declared chak out.
In my considered opinion, a plot of land cannot be declared chak out merely because it is situated adjacent to the abadi. In any case, the finding of the Deputy Director of Consolidation in the impugned order is to the contrary and counsel for the petitioner could not show that this finding to be in any manner, vitiated or perverse.
Under the circumstances, the writ petition is found to be devoid of merit because even from the photographs annexed to the writ petition, it is clear that the land in question is parti on the spot.
The writ petition is, therefore, dismissed.
Order Date :- 19.12.2018 Mayank