Court No. - 19
Case :- WRIT - B No. - 31848 of 2013 Petitioner :- Ramayan And Another Respondent :- D.D.C. And 3 Ors.
Counsel for Petitioner :- Manish Chandra Tiwari,Ram Singh Yadav Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Hari Lal Pandey
Hon'ble Salil Kumar Rai,J.
Heard Sri Manish Chandra Tiwari, the counsel for the petitioners and Sri Hari Lal Pandey, the counsel for respondent no. 4.
Through order dated 7.1.2012, the Consolidation Officer, Sadar, District Ghazipur allowed the objections filed by respondent no.
4 under Section 20 of the Uttar Pradesh Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as, 'Act, 1953') and amended her chaks on Plot Nos. 255 and 256. The petitioners and the respondent no. 4 are co-tenure holders of Plot Nos. 255 and 256. Aggrieved by the order dated 7.1.2012, the petitioners filed an appeal under Section 21 of the Act, 1953 on the ground that in the allotment of chaks as made by the Consolidation Officer the shape of the chak did not confirm to its area and, therefore, the allotment of chaks as made by the Consolidation Officer may be amended so that the shape of the chak may confirm to the area of the chak allotted to the petitioners. The Settlement Officer of Consolidation vide his order dated 11.10.2012 allowed the appeal filed by the petitioners but in the process withdrew 0.015 hctrs. of Plot No. 255 allotted in the chak of respondent no. 4. Not satisfied with the relief granted by the Settlement Officer of Consolidation, the petitioners filed a revision before the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Ghazipur. Against the order dated 11.10.2012 passed by the Settlement Officer of Consolidation, the respondent no. 4 also filed a revision and the revisions filed by the petitioners and respondent no. 4 were decided by a common order dated 21.3.2013 whereby the revision of the petitioners has been dismissed but the revision of respondent no. 4 has been allowed. It is evident from the order passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Ghazipur that the revision of respondent no. 4 has been allowed on the ground that she was a small tenure holder and the petitioners had been allotted a rectangular chak. The order dated 21.3.2013 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation has been challenged in the present writ petition.
It was argued by the counsel for the petitioners that by order dated 21.3.2013 the respondent no. 4 has been allotted more than her share on Plot No. 255. I have perused the records.
It is true that by order dated 21.3.2013 the respondent no. 4 has been allotted more than her share on Plot No. 255 but the said fact cannot in itself be a ground to set-aside the order passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation in as much as the petitioners have been allotted 0.010 hectrs. on Plot No. 255 through order dated 21.3.2013 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation and the said area was also allotted to the petitioners by the Consolidation Officer against which the only relief sought by the petitioners before the Settlement Officer of Consolidation was that the shape of the chak allotted to them did not confirm to the area of the chak and violated the principle of rectangulation. While passing the order dated 21.3.2013, the Deputy Director of Consolidation has considered the fact that the respondent no. 4 was a small tenure holder.
There is no illegality in the order passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation. The writ petition lacks merit and is, hereby, dismissed.
Order Date :- 26.7.2019 Satyam