Heard Sri R.P. Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri R.U. Ansari for the respondent no.3 and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent nos. 1 and 2. Learned counsel for the Gaon Sabha has accepted notice for the respondent no. 4. Learned counsel agree that the matter be disposed of finally at this stage itself without awaiting any further exchange of affidavits.
A sketch map has been prepared by Sri Ansari to advance his submissions which has been placed before the Court in relation to the stages of allotment over plot no. 149 about which the dispute has been raised in this writ petition.
It is undisputed that Plot No. 149 is the joint holding of the petitioner and the respondent no. 3. It is also undisputed that both have half share each in the said plot. The tubewell of the respondent no. 3 is on the northern side of the said plot whereas the tubewell of the petitioner no.2 Lalta is almost in the middle towards the southern side.
The Assistant Consolidation Officer proposed one small chak facing the roadside to the respondent no. 3 and an east-west chak to the said respondent including her tubewell on the northern side of plot No. 149. This was causing inconvenience to the petitioner as the small chak of the respondent no. 3 was in the middle of the entire chak that was allotted to the petitioner.
At the stage of the Consolidation Officer this was sought to be rectified by giving a compact square chak to the petitioner facing the roadside, the width thereof was 60 Lathas. The balance of 27 Lathas towards the roadside was given in the chak of the respondent no. 3. The respondent no. 3 became aggrieved on account of this as she was given a lesser width of the area of Plot No. 149 facing the road.
The Settlement Officer Consolidation in appeal carved out a third case by declaring two karis of land facing the roadside to be suitable for being kept out of consolidation operations. The balance of the land on the northern side was thereafter distributed between the petitioner and the respondent no. 3 including their tubewells, as a result whereof the petitioner was pushed behind the land which was kept out of consolidation operations and thereafter the respondent no. 3 was allotted her chak on the northern side. This resulted in the petitioners allotment being sandwiched in between.
The grievance of the petitioners is that they have now been deprived of the entire land facing the roadside on account of declaration of two karis of land under C.H. 18 besides the road full length from east to west and the allotment of the petitioner now in the middle of Plot No. 149.
After having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the sketch map prepared by Sri R.U. Ansari the contention raised on behalf of the petitioner appears to be correct. The petitioner and the respondent no. 3 are both entitled to half share each of Plot No. 149 with an adjustment of their sources of irrigation. The adjustment which was made at the Consolidation Officer level was quite appropriate except for the width of the land allotted towards the roadside. In view of this, the impugned order of the Settlement Officer Consolidation dated 5.6.2010 and the Deputy Director of Consolidation dated 29.11.2011 are set aside with a direction to the Deputy Director of Consolidation to maintain the division of the holding between the petitioners and the respondent no. 3 as was done at the Consolidation Officer level subject to the modification that both of them shall be given an equal width of frontage towards the road.
Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. Let the aforesaid chaks be drawn out and orders passed in accordance with the observations made hereinabove within a period of three months from the date of presentation of a certified copy of this order before the Deputy Director of Consolidation.
Order Date :- 29.2.2012 Sahu