Court No. - 22
Case :- WRIT - B No. - 25195 of 1992 Petitioner :- Ram Niwas Pandey Respondent :- DDC Counsel for Petitioner :- R .C Singh Counsel for Respondent :- H.N. Singh,Ravi Ranjan
Hon'ble Salil Kumar Rai,J.
Heard Mr. Narayandutt Shukla, holding brief of Mr. R.C. Singh learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Arvind Kumar Tiwari holding brief of Mr. H.N. Singh, learned counsel for the respondent.
The present writ petition has been filed against the order dated 30.08.1991, passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation, District Gorakhpur i.e. respondent no. 1 in Revision No. 2250 of 1991 filed under Section 48 of the Uttar Pradesh Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (hereinafter refer to as the Act of 1953).
Aggrieved by the settlement of Chak as made till the stage of Settlement Officer of Consolidation, respondent no. 2 filed Revision No. 2250 of 1991 pleading that he was a small tenure holder and by the arrangement of chaks as made till the stage of Settlement Officer of Consolidation, the area of chak allotted to him had been considerably reduced compared to the area of his original holdings. In his order dated 30.08.1991, the Deputy Director of Consolidation considering that the respondent no. 2 was a small tenure holder held that even though the reduced area of respondent no. 2 was within the limits prescribed under the Act of 1953, but the same was considerable as the respondent no. 2 was a small tenure holder. In order to protect the interest of respondent no. 2, the Deputy Director of Consolidation vide his order dated 30.08.1991, made slight re- arrangement in Chaks allotted to respondent no. 2 which included plot nos. 20 and 75.
The counsel for the petitioner has argued that the order dated 30.08.1991, was passed without giving any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and without considering the fact that the petitioner had made investment over the plot which were withdrawn from the petitioner by order dated 30.08.1991.
It may be noticed that against the order dated 30.08.1991, the petitioner had filed a restoration application before the Deputy Director of Consolidation which was dismissed by order dated 25.06.1992 as the petitioner failed to appear before the court when the restoration application was called out for hearing.
It has not been stated in the writ petition that the order dated 25.06.1992 was erroneous. The petitioner has not been able to point to any of error or illegality in the order dated 25.06.1992, whereby the restoration application of the petitioner was dismissed.
In view of the aforesaid, the argument of the counsel for the petitioner that the order dated 30.08.1991 was passed without hearing the petitioner and without giving him any opportunity to represent his case cannot be accepted. It has not been stated in the writ petition that during the proceedings in Revision No. 2250 of 1991 the petitioner had brought to the notice of the Deputy Director of Consolidation that he had made improvements on the plot allotted to him till the stage of Settlement Officer of Consolidation. The petitioner cannot be permitted to raise the said factual plea before this Court for the first time in writ proceedings.
There is no illegality in the orders dated 30.08.1991 and 25.06.1992 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation i.e. respondent no. 1.
It is not a fit case for interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India The writ petition lacks merit and is dismissed.
Order Date :- 26.2.2019 sweta