Court No. - 5
Case :- WRIT - B No. - 3687 of 2018 Petitioner :- Pushpa Devi Respondent :- Additional District Magistrate (F And R)/ D.D.C. Ghazipur And 9 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Rakesh Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Pradeep Kumar Singh Baghel,J.
The petitioner has preferred this writ petition for issuance of a writ of certiorari to quash the order of the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Ghazipur, the first respondent, dated 17th January, 2018 in respect of allotment of chak. The Deputy Director of Consolidation has taken the view that all the co- sharers are entitled for their holding near the roadside and accordingly, he has set aside the order of the Settlement Officer Consolidation and has provided chak to all the co-sharers adjacent to road.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Deputy Director of Consolidation has not considered the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act of the contesting respondents and without condoning the delay he has partly allowed their revision. He has further submitted that the Deputy Director of Consolidation has allotted an uran chak to the petitioner, which is far away from the abadi. No other submission has been made.
I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel and perused the record.
The second respondent has moved an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act before the Settlement Officer Consolidation and the Deputy Director of Consolidation both. The Settlement Officer Consolidation had condoned the delay. In the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act the second respondent has stated that he is illiterate and poor farmer and he did not have knowledge of the order passed by the Settlement Officer Consolidation as the judgment was reserved by him. Since there was delay in pronouncement of the judgment, he had no knowledge about the date of pronouncement of the judgment and he was engaged in his agricultural and daily chorus. When he came to know by rumor on 26th February, 2015 about the order, he immediately contacted his lawyer on the very next day on 27th February, 2015. On enquiry, the petitioner came to know that the Settlement Officer Consolidation has allotted him an uran chak on Gata No. 304. Thereafter, he immediately without loss of time on the very next date i.e. on 28th February, 2015 applied for the certified copy of the order. On the next day i.e. 01st March, 2015 it was Sunday, hence he filed the revision on 02nd March, 2015.
I have perused the application under Section 5 carefully and I find that the delay explained by the contesting respondents was bonafide and the Deputy Director of Consolidation has not committed any error by entertaining their revision.
As regards the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that an uran chak has been provided to him, I find that the said submission has no basis. Section 19 of the Uttar Pradesh Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (for short, the "Act") lays down certain principles and it does not say that an uran chak cannot be allotted in any circumstance. Learned counsel for the petitioner has failed to point out any violation of Section 19 of the Act. I have perused his grounds also. No ground has been taken regarding violation of Section 19 of the Act.
Allotment of chak is an equitable jurisdiction. The provisions of the Act cast an obligation on the consolidation authorities to make spot inspection and to allot chaks in the light of the principles mentioned under Section 19 of the Act. In the present case, the Deputy Director of Consolidation has allotted roadside land to all the co-sharers. Hence, I find that the order of the Deputy Director of Consolidation does not warrant any interference. This Court in a long line of decisions has held that under Article 226 of the Constitution the High Court should not interfere in the matter of allotment of chak. Reference may be made to the judgments of this Court in the cases of Brijpal Singh and etc. v. Assistant Director, Consolidation, Mathura and others, 1997 All.L.J. 1115, and Amarjit Singh v. Assistant Director of Consolidation, Jaunpur and others, 1998 (89) RD 231.
In view of the above, I do not find any ground to interfere in the matter. The writ petition lacks merit. It is accordingly dismissed.
No order as to costs.
Order Date :- 27.4.2018 SKT/-