]Court No. - 9
Case :- WRIT - B No. - 419 of 2019 Petitioner :- Omdutt And Another Respondent :- Deputy Director Of Consolidation And 9 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Surendra Pratap Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Mahesh Narain Singh,Satendra Pratap Singh
Hon'ble Anjani Kumar Mishra,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Satendra Pratap Singh, who has filed caveat on behalf of respondents 2,3 and 4.
The instant writ petition arises out of proceedings for allotment of chaks and is directed against the revisional order dated 21.01.2019 passed in revision filed by the respondents.
The contention of counsel for the petitioner is that on account of impugned order, the chak of the petitioner has been disturbed at the first instance at the revisional stage without assigning any reason for the same. The order impugned is therefore, vitiated.
Counsel for the respondents 2,3 and 4 has supported the impugned order.
He has contended that the respondents field the revision claiming allotment of plot no.595, which was their original holding and contained their private source of irrigation.
At the appellate stage, this relief was refused on the ground that in case, this plea was accepted, other original holders would be disturbed from their chaks.
Against the appellate order, the revision filed by the respondents has been allowed on the reasoning that a tenure holder could not be refused a chak on his original holding, which contained his private source of irrigation on the ground that it would disturb the chak of others.
One of the fundamental provisions for allotment of chaks is that a tenure holder should be allotted a chak of his original holding containing his private source of irrigation.
This fundamental provision incorporated in Section 19 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act had been followed in its breach and the respondent had been allotted a wholly udan chak with which, the Settlement Officer Consolidation failed to interfere on a reasoning, which does not appeal to this Court.
It is no doubt true that the petitioner has been affected by the order impugned. However, on a pointed query by the Court, as to the irreparable injury suffered by him, nothing of substance could be submitted by counsel for the petitioner.
From a perusal of the correction table appended to the order impugned, this Court finds that the chak of two petitioners, Omdutt and Shivdutt has no doubt being affected but the modification is more or less on the same place. The same does not appear to be a substantial modification and at best appears to be a minor modification.
Under the circumstances and since no specific or irreparable injury could be pointed out, that may have been suffered by the petitioner on account of the impugned order, this Court does not consider it a fit case for interference, especially, when the revision has been allowed to allot the respondents a chak over their original holding contained their private source of irrigation in lieu of a wholly udan chak that has been allotted to them.
In view of the foregoing discussion and since no manifest illegality is found in the order dated 21.01.2019, the writ petition fails and is dismissed.
Order Date :- 26.2.2019 RKM