Court No. - 5
Case :- WRIT - B No. - 4190 of 2018 Petitioner :- Rajpal Singh Respondent :- Deputy Director Of Consolidation Sambhal And 12 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Kripa Shanker Yadav,Manish Dev 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 dated 1.2.2018 whereby the Deputy Director, Consolidation has allowed the revision of contesting respondents.
Matter relates to allotment of chak. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in the plot in question situated at Gata No. 1785 his tubewell is in existence. He could not satisfy the Court from C.H. Form 2-A, which demonstrates the source of irrigation, that Plot No. 1785 is his original holding in which a small portion of land has been allotted to him.
I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel.
Matter relates to the allotment of chak. Section 19 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 uses the words "as far as possible" while the chak is allotted to a tenure holder. The word 'irrigation' has also been used in Section - 19 but the words "as far as possible" have been interpreted by this Court in the case of Prag Narain v. L.M.C. etc., 1980 RD 50 and Maksoodan and others v. Jt. Director of Consolidation and others, 1985 RD 463.
In the present case the petitioner could not demonstrate that his source of irrigation exists on Plot No. 1785. Along with a supplementary affidavit the petitioner has filed photograph of his source of irrigation which is movable gen set. It cannot be said that it is a tubewell.
Be that as it may, in view of the law laid down by this Court that even in the case of source of irrigation the authorities will try as far as possible and if it is not possible they can record reasons. From the order passed by the authorities it is clear that they had given reason for allotting the chak in favour of contesting respondents.
In addition to above, in Plot No. 1785 which is original holding of the petitioner and the petitioner has half share and the consolidation authorities have allotted him a small portion of the area, this cannot be said that it is a material irregularity.
The writ petition lacks merit and it is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs.
Order Date :- 30.5.2018 Digamber