Court No. - 11
Case :- WRIT - B No. - 13220 of 2005 Petitioner :- Ram Krit & Others Respondent :- D.D.C. & Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Sankatha Rai,Dr Vinod Kumar Rai,Vijay Kumar Rai Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Anuj Kumar,M R Gupta,P.N. Kushwaha
Hon'ble Salil Kumar Rai,J.
Heard Sri Ashok Singh, counsel for the petitioners, Sri M.R. Gupta, counsel for respondent no. 3 and the Standing Counsel representing respondent no. 1.
The facts of the case are that Thakuri i.e. the father of petitioner nos. 1 and 2 was chak holder no. 127, Babni i.e. the mother of petitioner nos. 1 and 2 was chak holder no. 240, the petitioner nos. 1 and 2 are chak holder no. 304, petitioner no. 3 is chak holder no. 311 and respondent no. 3 is chak holder no.
4. Dissatisfied with the arrangement of chak as settled till the stage of Settlement Officer of Consolidation, respondent no. 3 instituted Revision No. 1272/1329/1474 under Section 48(1) of the Uttar Pradesh Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as, 'Act, 1953') in the court of respondent no. 1. The said revision was disposed of by respondent no. 1 vide his order dated 11.6.2002 whereby respondent no. 1 partly allowed the aforesaid revision by amending the arrangements of chak as settled till the stage of Settlement Officer of Consolidation by allotting a chak constituted on Plot Nos. 145 and 121 to respondent no. 3. It was recorded in the order dated 11.6.2002 that the chak consisting of Plot Nos. 145 and 121 shall be allotted to respondent no. 3 after withdrawing the same from petitioner nos. 1 and 2 and in lieu thereof the petitioner nos. 1 and 2 i.e. chak holder no. 304 shall be allotted a chak on Plot No. 455 as their mother had been allotted a chak on Plot No. 451. It was further recorded in the order dated 11.6.2002 that respondent no. 3 shall also be allotted a chak on Plot No. 121 which was reserved for the Gaon Sabha with a valuation of 50 paisa. However, the schedule appended to the order dated 11.6.2002 passed by respondent no. 1 did not confirm to the said order in as much as respondent no. 3 was allotted chaks on Plot Nos. 145 and 121 after withdrawing the same from chak holder no. 127 i.e. the father of the petitioner nos. 1 and 2 and chak holder no. 311 i.e. petitioner no. 3. The order dated 11.6.2002 was challenged by petitioner nos. 1 and 2 in this Court through Writ Petition No. 26843 of 2002. The said writ petition was disposed of by this Court vide order dated 11.7.2002 permitting the petitioners in the said case to file an application before respondent no. 1 for correction of the amended schedule so as to bring it in conformity with the order and the said application had to be decided by respondent no. 1 within a period of three months from the date of its filing. It appears that in the meantime, the petitioner no. 3 also filed an application dated 24.6.2002 before respondent no. 1 praying that the schedule annexed to the order dated 11.6.2002 be corrected and the chak withdrawn from him as shown in the schedule appended to the said order be restored to petitioner no. 3. The aforesaid application was titled as recall application. In pursuance to the order dated 11.6.2002 passed by this Court in Writ Petition No. 26843 of 2002, the petitioner nos. 1 and 2 also filed an application before respondent no. 1 praying that the schedule appended to the order dated 11.6.2002 be appropriately corrected so as to confirm to the order passed by respondent no. 1. The respondent no. 1 vide his order dated 28.12.2004 allegedly 'modified' his previous order dated 11.6.2002 providing that the chaks constituted on Plot Nos. 145 and 121 be withdrawn from petitioner no. 3 and Thakuri i.e. the father of petitioner nos. 1 and 2 and allotted to respondent no. 3 i.e. the chak holder No. 4.' The orders dated 28.12.2004 and 11.6.2002 passed by respondent no. 1 have been challenged in the present writ petition.
The contention of counsel for the petitioners is that in his order dated 11.6.2002, respondent no. 1 had clearly provided for the re-arrangement of chaks by withdrawing the chak allotted to petitioner no. 1 i.e. the chak holder nos. 304 on Plot Nos. 145 and 121 and Plot No. 121 included in the Khata of the Gaon Sabha and respondent no. 1 had exceeded his jurisdiction in modifying the aforesaid order by directing that the chak constituted on Plot Nos. 145 and 121 and allotted to Thakuri and petitioner no. 3 i.e. chak holder nos. 127 and 311 be withdrawn and be allotted to respondent no. 3 and thus the order dated 28.12.2004 amounts to a review of the order dated 11.6.2002. It has been further contended by counsel for the petitioners that while passing the orders dated 11.6.2002 and 28.12.2004, respondent no. 1 has not considered the plea of the father of the petitioners that Plot No. 121 allotted to them till the stage of Settlement Officer of Consolidation was adjacent to his 'Sahan' and he had his pumping sets on the aforesaid plot. It has been further argued by counsel for the petitioners that the order dated 11.6.2002 was passed by respondent no. 1 without hearing petitioner no. 3 and was therefore passed in violation of the principles of natural justice. Rebutting the argument of counsel for the petitioners, counsel for respondent has argued that the recital in the order dated 11.6.2002 regarding the withdrawal of chaks allotted to chak holder no. 304 i.e. the petitioner nos. 1 and 2 on Plot Nos. 145 and 121 is a mere typing error and the same was creating a confusion regarding the schedule appended to the order dated 11.6.2002 and was thus rightly modified by respondent no. 1 vide his order dated 28.12.2004. It has been contended by counsel for respondent no. 3 that the order dated 28.12.2004 is in effect correction of the order dated 11.6.2002 passed by respondent no. 1 as petitioner nos. 1 and 2 i.e. chak holder no. 304 were never allotted any chak on Plot No. 145 and 121.
I have considered the rival submissions of counsel for the parties and perused the records.
The order dated 11.6.2002 passed by respondent no. 1 was challenged by petitioner nos. 1 and 2 in Writ Petition No. 26843 of 2002 which was disposed of by this Court vide order dated 11.7.2002. From a perusal of the order dated 11.7.2002, it is apparent that the only argument that was raised by counsel for the petitioner nos. 1 and 2 against the order dated 11.6.2002 was that the schedule appended to the order dated 11.6.2002 was not in conformity with the contents of the said order and the Court had permitted the petitioner nos. 1 and 2 to file an application for correction of the schedule appended to the order dated 11.6.2002. It is interesting to note that the schedule appended to the order dated 11.6.2002 was not affecting petitioner nos. 1 and 2 i.e. chak holder no. 304. However, the same was affecting Thakuri i.e. the father of petitioner nos. 1 and 2. Be that as it may, in view of order dated 11.7.2002 passed by this Court, the order dated 11.6.2002 has become final so far as it affects petitioner nos. 1 and 2 and petitioner nos. 1 and 2 are precluded from challenging the same in the present writ petition. So far as the petitioner no. 3 is concerned, any violation of principles of natural justice alleged by petitioner no. 3 regarding the order dated 11.6.2002 were rectified by respondent no. 1 by passing a fresh order dated 28.12.2004 after hearing petitioner no. 3 on an application filed by him praying for recall of the order dated 11.6.2002 and for correction of the schedule appended to the said order. Thus, the writ petition, so far as, it has been filed against the order dated 11.6.2002 is rejected.
A perusal of the records annexed with the writ petition shows that till the stage of Settlement Officer of Consolidation, Thakuri i.e. the father of the petitioner nos. 1 and 2 was allotted a chak on Plot Nos. 145, 147 and 121 and petitioner no. 3 was also alloted a chak on Plot Nos. 145, 146 and 147. A perusal of the records annexed with the writ petition would also show that petitioner nos. 1 and 2, who are chak holder nos. 304 were not allotted any chak on Plot Nos. 145 and 121. In the circumstances, the order dated 11.6.2002 passed by respondent no. 1 could not have been practically implemented and the order allotting chak to respondent no. 3 on Plot Nos. 145 and 121 would have been a purposeless recital in the order dated 11.6.2002. The recital in the order dated 11.6.2002 regarding withdrawal of chak constituted on Plot Nos. 145 and 121 from Ram Krit 'Aadi' i.e. Ram Krit (petitioner no. 1) appears to have been recorded due to over sight as the said plots were allotted to petitioner no. 3 and father of petitioner nos. 1 and 2. In the circumstances, the order dated 28.12.2004 so far as it modifies the order dated 11.6.2002 to the effect that respondent no. 3 shall be allotted chaks on Plot Nos. 145 and 121 after withdrawing the same from chak holder no. 127 i.e. the father of petitioner nos. 1 and 2 and chak holder no. 311 i.e. the petitioner no. 3 are according to law as the same was necessary for implementation of the order dated 11.6.2002 passed by respondent no. 1 allotting the aforesaid chak to respondent no.
3. Similarly, the next contention of counsel for the petitioners that while passing the order dated 28.12.2004, respondent no. 3 has not considered that Plot No. 121 allotted to Thakuri was the 'Sahan' of the petitioners and they had their pumping sets on the same is also belied from the records. A perusal of the application dated 4.6.2002 (annexed as annexure no. 14 to the writ petition) filed by Thakuri i.e. father of petitioner nos. 1 and 2 clearly shows that before respondent no. 1, the petitioners had merely pleaded that Plot Nos. 121 and 145 were adjacent to their house, 'Sahan', and pumping set. The orders dated 11.6.2002 and 28.12.2004 passed by respondent no. 1 relate to arrangement of chaks, I do not find any perversity or illegality or jurisdictional error in the aforesaid orders. For the aforesaid reason, the argument of counsel for the petitioners are hereby rejected.
The writ petition lacks merit and is hereby dismissed.
Order Date :- 30.4.2018 Satyam