Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Hari Om Khare for the respondent no. 4 to 8. The respondent nos. 9 to 13 had been served through registered post but neither the acknowledgment nor the registered envelopes have been returned back. The notices therefore on the said respondents will be deemed to be served.
This is a petition arising out of allotment of chaks particularly over Plot Nos. 957, 958 and 959 which are stated to be adjacent to a road. The petitioners contend that they are co-tenure-holders of the said plots but they have not been allotted land facing the roadside. It is this grievance which was raised during the consolidation operations and the matter travelled upto the High Court whereupon it was remanded to the Deputy Director of Consolidation on 3rd October, 2002 for decision afresh. The Deputy Director of Consolidation vide order dated 19.2.2007 has arrived at the conclusion that if such a division is made it will result in allotment of narrow strips and therefore it would not be appropriate to carry out the allotment accordingly.
The respondent nos. 4 to 8 have purchased the land from the respondent nos. 2 and 3. They have filed a counter affidavit and in paragraph 11 it has been alleged that the length of 366 meters is available facing the roadside, and since the answering contesting respondents are share holders of half of the disputed land, they ought to have been allotted a length of 183 meters instead of 136 meters which has been allotted to the respondents 2 and 3. Sri Khare submits that the answering contesting respondents are even otherwise satisfied with the length of 136 meters only even though they have half share in the holding.
Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the finding recorded by the Deputy Director of Consolidation once the respondents 2 to 8 are satisfied with the extent of their allotment then the Deputy Director of Consolidation should have proportionately adjusted the petitioners also according to their shares facing the roadside over the aforesaid plots. Roadside land being of potential value, the petitioners would be satisfied even if the width of the plots is a bit narrow. The share of the petitioners has been indicated as 1/24 in the order dated 19.2.2007. The same is not disputed before this Court.
Accordingly, the writ petition is partly allowed and the order dated 19.2.2007 is set aside to the extent that the petitioners shall be given proportionate allotment over Plot Nos. 957, 958 and 959 to the extent of their shares as claimed by them by passing an order within three months.
Order Date :- 11.1.2012 Sahu