Court No. - 33
Case :- WRIT - B No. - 56243 of 2017 Petitioner :- Om Prakash Respondent :- Dy. Director Of Consolidation & 5 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Anirudh Sharma Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Manoj Misra,J.
Supplementary affidavit filed today, is taken on record.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner; learned Standing Counsel for the respondents 1, 2 and 3; and perused the record.
The present petition arises out of chak allotment proceeding.
It appears that against the proposal of the Assistant Consolidation Officer, the petitioner filed an objection claiming allotment over plot nos.61/1 and 61/2. The said objection came to be rejected by the Consolidation Officer vide order dated 27.07.2015 upon finding that already allotment of the said plot had been made at his level which has merged in the appellate order dated 04.07.2015 passed by the Settlement Officer of Consolidation in Appeal Nos.379, 449, 518 therefore the objection of the petitioner cannot be accepted at his level. However, he had condoned the delay in filing the objection.
Aggrieved by rejection of his objection, the petitioner filed appeal before the Settlement Officer of Consolidation. The Settlement Officer of Consolidation vide order dated 03.09.2015 passed in appeal No.608 (Annexure No.S.A. 2 to the supplementary affidavit) rejected the appeal by observing that the allotment of the plot demanded has been made and the matter has been decided in other appeals therefore alteration at his level would amount to review of the orders passed in other appeals.
Aggrieved by the order passed by the Consolidation Officer as well as the Settlement Officer of Consolidation, the petitioner filed revision before the Deputy Director of Consolidation which has been dismissed by the impugned order dated 21.12.2016.
The Deputy Director of Consolidation examined the merits of the claim of the petitioner and found that the original holding of the petitioner at plot 61/1 and 61/2 was valued at 3 paise whereas chak allotted to the petitioner was of 32.60 paise and therefore it found that if, for providing 61/1 and 61/2, alteration is made, then a large number of chak holders would be affected, who would, in that scenario, be deprived of their original holding. Accordingly, for such a small valuation, the Deputy Director of Consolidation did not consider it appropriate to entertain the claim made by the petitioner.
The learned counsel for the petitioner has assailed the orders passed by all the three consolidation authorities on the ground that his case had not been considered on merits by the Consolidation Officer and the Settlement Officer of Consolidation and he has been wrongly deprived of plot no.61/1 and 61/2 which was close to the road.
Considering the grievance of the petitioner this Court had put question to the learned counsel for the petitioner whether any objection was filed by the petitioner against the proposal to keep plot no.61/1 and 61/2 in the consolidation operations and whether any request was made to keep the aforesaid plot out of consolidation proceedings on the ground that they were valuable road side plots.
The learned counsel for the petitioner very fairly stated that no such objection has been taken by the petitioner.
Therefore, once the petitioner has accepted the said plots to be part of the consolidation scheme, the order passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation which has taken note of the fact that the petitioner had miniscule valuation at plot no.61/1 and 61/2 and therefore to provide such miniscule valuation at those plots would affect other chak holders, who would, in that scenario, be deprived of their original holding thereby disturbing the entire consolidation scheme for no substantial reason, calls for no interference. The petition is dismissed.
Order Date :- 29.11.2017 AKShukla/-