Court No. - 9
Case :- WRIT - B No. - 5581 of 2018 Petitioner :- Rajesh Kumar And 9 Others Respondent :- Apar Jiladhikari Basti And 11 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Sumitra Singh,Phool Chandra Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Anjani Kumar Mishra,J.
Supplementary affidavit has been filed by Counsel for the petitioners in Court today. The same is taken on record.
The writ petition is directed against the order dated 13.01.2004, whereby a reference made to the Deputy Director of Consolidation was accepted, and the order dated 05.11.2018, whereby a recall application filed by the petitioners predecessor-in-interest, has been rejected.
From the perusal of the averments made in the writ petition, it appears that the petitioners are seeking an allotment over plot no.89/1 on the ground that it is valuable road side land. However, from the perusal of the ground taken in the writ petition, it transpires that the petitioners are aggrieved because certain area of plot no.89/1 had been left out as bachat land, vide order dated 27.12.2003.
By the order impugned dated 13.01.2004, passed in reference, this bachat land has been allotted to chak holder no.66, one of the respondents.
However, since no area of plot no.89/1 has been excluded from the chak of the petitioners, they cannot be said to be aggrieved by such allotment. No prejudice is caused to the petitioners if some bachat land has been allotted to one of the respondents.
After the above order was dictated in open Court, counsel for the petitioner has appeared and has filed the supplementary affidavit.
His contention is that petitioners were never aware of the order passed in the year 2003, whereby some part of plot no.89/1 had been left as bachat land. It is this bachat, which by the order impugned passed in reference, had been allotted to Chak Holder no.66.
It is, therefore, clear that the chak of the petitioner has not been affected by the order passed in the year 2004. He is therefore, not an affected party and therefore, it is not open for him to challenge the same nor it was open for them to have sought its recall.
Relying upon various notifications issued by the State Government, it has been submitted that valuable road side land of plot no.89/1, should have been allotted to them. These notifications provide that land situated adjacent to main roads being commercially valuable land should either be excluded from consolidation operations or should be allotted to its original holder(s).
This argument is not available to the petitioners at the stage of reference. The order passed in 2003, whereby area of plot no.81/1 was left as bachat , probably in the statement of proposals or even thereafter, was never subjected to any challenge and has attained finality during chak allotment proceedings. It is, therefore, not open for challenge, once the bachat land has been given to another chak holder in a reference under Section 48(3) of the Act.
The writ petition is therefore, without merit and is dismissed.
Order Date :- 26.11.2018 RKM