Court No. - 19
Case :- WRIT - B No. - 1875 of 2019
Petitioner :- Muralidhar
Respondent :- Deputy Director Of Consolidation, Jaunpur And 09 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Ram Jeet Mishra
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Kailash Nath Singh
Hon'ble Salil Kumar Rai,J.
Heard Shri Ram Jeet Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Kailash Nath Singh, Advocate, representing respondent No. 6.
Against the allotment of chaks as proposed till the stage of Consolidation Officer (hereinafter referred to as, 'C.O.'), the respondent No. 6 filed appeal before the Settlement Officer of Consolidation, i.e., respondent No. 2 (hereinafter referred to as, 'S.O.C.'), which was allowed by the S.O.C. vide his order dated 18.7.2018. Through his order dated 18.7.2018, the S.O.C. withdrew Plot Nos. 304, 305, 306 and 307 from the chak of the petitioner and included the same in the chak of respondent No. 6 alongwith Plot No. 287 and in lieu thereof allotted a chak to the petitioner on Plot Nos. 231/, 232/2 and 233 of which Plot Nos. 231 and 233 were the original holding of the petitioner. The said amendments were made by the S.O.C. on the ground that the Plot No. 287 was adjacent to and infront of the Abadi and Sahan of respondent No. 6.
Against the order dated 18.7.2018 passed by the S.O.C., the petitioner filed Revision No. 486/2017-18 under Section 48(1) of the Uttar Pradesh Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as, 'Act, 1953'), which has been dismissed by the D.D.C. vide his order dated 27.4.2019. It appears that before the revisional court, the petitioner had sought a chak on Plot No. 289 which the petitioner claims to be adjacent to his Sahan. The D.D.C. rejected the plea of the petitioner and dismissed the revision. The orders dated 18.7.2018 and 27.4.2019 passed by the S.O.C. and the D.D.C. have been challenged in the present writ petition.
It was argued by the counsel for the petitioner that the order dated 27.4.2019 passed by the D.D.C. is a non- speaking order inasmuch as no reasons have been given in the same for rejecting the revision filed by the petitioner and the petitioner was entitled to a chak adjacent to his Abadi and Sahan, i.e., a chak on Plot No. 287. It was argued that through their impugned orders dated 18.7.2018 and 27.4.2019 the S.O.C. and the D.D.C. have disturbed the equities in the case by withdrawing the chak allotted to the petitioner on Plot Nos. 231/ 232/2 and 233. It was further contended that through the order dated 18.7.2018 passed by the S.O.C., the area allotted to the petitioner till the stage of C.O. has been reduced. It was argued that for the aforesaid reasons, the impugned orders dated 18.7.2018 and 27.4.2019 passed by the S.O.C. and the D.D.C. are liable to be set aside. In support of his arguments, the counsel for the petitioner has relied on the judgements of this Court in Sheo Pal Vs. Basu Deo & Others, 2017 (135), Kalloo Vs. Deputy Director of consolidation, Basti, Laws (All) 2009 2 85 and Mohar Singh & Others Vs. O Meerut & Others, Laws (All) 2012 1 161.
I have considered the submissions of the counsel for the parties and also perused the record.
It is apparent that by order dated 18.7.2018 passed by the S.O.C., the petitioner has been allotted a chak on his original holding, i.e., Plot Nos. 231 and 233 after withdrawing Plot Nos. 304, 305, 306 and 307 and the respondent No. 6 has been allotted a chak on Plot No. 287 which was adjacent to his Abadi and Sahan and in the process has also been allotted a chak on Plot Nos. 304, 305, 306 and 307.
There is no illegality in the order dated 18.7.2018 passed by the S.O.C. so far as modification of chak in favour of respondent No. 6 is concerned.
In the appeal filed by respondent No. 6 the petitioner had sought a chak on Plot No. 289. It is apparent that the petitioner was not allotted any chak on Plot No. 289 by the C.O. and no appeal was filed by the petitioner seeking a chak on Plot No. 289. In view of the aforesaid, no illegality was committed by the appellate court or the revisional court in rejecting the plea of the petitioner for a chak on Plot No. 289. Through the impugned order dated 18.7.2018 passed by the S.O.C., which has been affirmed by the D.D.C. through his order dated 27.4.2019, the petitioner has been allotted a chak on his original holding.
So far as the argument of the counsel for the petitioner regarding reduction in the area allotted to the petitioner is concerned, it is sufficient to note that the allotment of chak is regulated by the valuation of the plots and the only prohibition on the consolidation authorities is there should not be a variation of more than 25% between the total area of the original holding of the tenure holder and the area allotted to him. The valuation of 80 paisa of Plot Nos. 231 and 233 was never objected by the petitioner even though they were the original holdings of the petitioner. A reading of the order dated 27.4.2019 passed by the D.D.C. also shows that valid reasons have been given by the D.D.C. for rejecting the revision filed by the petitioner.
The impugned orders do not violate Section 19 of the Act, 1953 and there can be no allottment of chak which would fully satisfy all the tenure holders in the unit.
The writ petition lacks merit, and is, accordingly dismissed.
Order Date :- 30.7.2019 Anurag/-