Court No. - 36
Case :- WRIT - B No. - 3042 of 2018 Petitioner :- Raj Narayan Degree College Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 7 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Dhirendra Kumar Tripathi, Yogendra Kumar Yadav Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Mrs. Sunita Agarwal,J.
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
The present petition is directed against the orders dated 27.09.2016, 28.03.2017 and 27.11.2017 passed by the Consolidation authorities. The present petition arises out of a chak dispute which was raised by the petitioner before the revisional court challenging the order dated 27.09.2016 passed by the Settlement Officer Consolidation.
The petitioner is chak holder no.925. Three other revisions were filed by chak holder no.981, 479 and 1634 against the order dated 27.09.2016. Four revisions were consolidated together and decided vide order dated 27.11.2017 which is under challenge in the present petition.
The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner has not been provided a chak of his original holding by the Consolidation authorities. The objection raised by the petitioner before the Consolidation Officer were illegally rejected vide order dated 28.03.2017 on the ground that the order in Appeal no.385 dated 27.09.2016 has become final between the parties and it was not open for the Consolidation Officer to disturb the chak arrangement. It appears that thereafter, the revision no.1257 (Raj Narayan Degree College Vs. State of U.P. & others) was filed by the petitioner challenging the order dated 27.09.2016.
It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was not heard by the appellate court and the order dated 27.09.2016 was, therefore, liable to be set aside.
In so far as the contention of the petitioner with regard to the original holding of the petitioner is concerned, CH form 23 has not been brought on record. On a query made by the Court, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the records of consolidation was not available in the office and he did not get it despite best efforts.
This submission of learned counsel for the petitioner appears to be a lame excuse, moreso, in view of the fact that learned counsel for the petitioner has produced the certified copies of the CH form 23 of the respondents chak holder nos.981, 479 and 1634. CH form 23 of three tenure holders reveals that plot no.656/1830-M area 0.401 was plots of their original holdings and they are having 1/3rd share each in the said plot.
It is noteworthy that the objections were filed in the name of Jai Prakash son of late Raj Narayan (Chak holder no.353) against Raj Narayan Degree College through Manager Ved Prakash (chak holder no.925) and other two chak holder nos.150 Om Prakash son of Ganesh and chak holder no.791 Mewa Lal son of Rajdev.
The revision against the order dated 27.09.2016 was, however, filed against chak holder 981, 479 and 1634 by Raj Naryan Degree College through Manager Jai Prakash Singh chak holder no.925.
Further perusal of paragraph no.3 of the memo of revision indicates that the demand raised by the revisionist/petitioner herein was to re-adjust his second chak in east-west direction so that it may have excess to PWD road. The revisional court while dismissing the revision no.1257 and allowing the revisions of other three chak holders (noted above) recorded a categorical finding that the dispute before him was with regard to the Gata no.656/1830 which was taken out from the chak of the chak holder 925 vide order dated 27.09.2016. It is further recorded that the plot no.656/1830-M is a valuable land being a road side land. The said plot being original holding of chak holder nos.981, 479 and 1634 was wrongly adjusted in the chak of chak holder no.925 namely the petitioner herein. The arrangement made by the Settlement Officer Consolidation vide order dated 27.09.2016 was slightly modified and in place of plot no.1804-M, 1669-M, 1805-M and 1816-M (Bachat land), plot no.886-M, 887-M, 888-M taken out from the plot of the respondent chak holder and has been given to the petitioner.
The Deputy Director of Consolidation has categorically recorded that the demand of the petitioner chak holder no.925 for providing land in Gata no.656/1830-M was wholly uncalled for.
In view of the above noted fact that plot no.656/1830-M was plot of original holding of three chak holders to whom it has been provided at the stage of appeal and slight modifications have been made by the Deputy Director of Consolidation accepting their demand for providing the entire plots as per their share, this Court does not find any error in the chak arrangement made by the revisional Court.
This Court, therefore, does not find any merit in the writ petition.
However, before parting the judgement, this Court feels it proper to note that during the course of dictation of judgement, learned counsel for the petitioner has passed on a certified copy of the CH form 23 of chak holder 925 though he denied having it during the course of arguments saying that he did not get a copy of the same. This act of the counsel is nothing but an effort to mislead the Court which cannot be approved of.
Learned counsel for the petitioner is hereby directed to remain careful in future and not to repeat such mistake. Otherwise, the Court will be constrained to issue notice to him and to report the matter to Bar Council of India. This order shall be treated as a warning to the learned counsel for the petitioner.
Lastly, it is pertinent to note that a perusal of CH from 23 of the petitioner chak holder no.925 shows that plot no.897-M which is now given to the petitioner was plot of his original holding. The petitioner had been illegally benefited by the Consolidation Officer/Assistant Consolidation Officer who proposes a valuable plot of original holdings of the respondents chak holders in the chak of the petitioner depriving them of their share against the norms of consolidation operation. This illegality has been rectified by the appellate and revisional Court.
In view of the above, the writ petition is found devoid of merit and hence dismissed.
Order Date :- 23.3.2018 Himanshu