Court No. - 33
Case :- WRIT - B No. - 56830 of 2017 Petitioner :- Ramesh Chand Respondent :- Dy. Director Of Consolidation & Another Counsel for Petitioner :- Vindhya Vashini Prasad Ra Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Manoj Misra,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner; learned Standing Counsel for the respondent no.1; and Sri Ayub Khan for the respondent no.2.
Sri Ayub Khan, who appears for the second respondent, does not pray for time to file counter affidavit and is agreeable that this petition be finally disposed of at this stage itself. Accordingly, with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, this petition is being finally decided.
The present petition emanates from chak alteration proceedings in which connection the petitioner had earlier filed a writ petition (i.e. Writ-B No.32827 of 2008) being aggrieved by order dated 21.05.2008 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation, which was allowed by order dated 05.07.2016 and the matter was remanded back.
The order of the Deputy Director of Consolidation dated 21.05.2008, which was set aside by this Court in Writ-B No.32827 of 2008, was passed in two revisions. One filed by Manvati; and the other by Darshan Devi (second respondent). After remand, Smt. Manvati did not press her revision and therefore the Deputy Director of Consolidation proceeded to consider the revision filed by Smt. Darshan Devi (second respondent). The Deputy Director of Consolidation thereafter passed an order whereby plot nos.924 and 925 were taken out from the chak of the petitioner and provided to the second respondent. The chak alteration table contains the chak map disclosing pre-alteration as well as post-alteration location of chaks.
A bare perusal of the chak position, as shown in the chak alteration table, would go to show that plot nos.924 and 925 are on the road side. The petitioner is aggrieved because the road side frontage which the petitioner had, has been reduced by the alteration.
The learned counsel for the petitioner has assailed the order passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation by submitting that plot nos.924 and 925 were part of the original holding of the petitioner and therefore those plots were provided to the petitioner whereas the second respondent neither had plot no.924 nor plot no.925 in her original holding. It has been submitted that the second respondent did not have any original holding plot on the road side and therefore the adjustment made by the Deputy Director of Consolidation outright favours the second respondent.
The learned counsel for the second respondent has submitted that whether the original holding plots of the second respondent were on the road side or not is not ascertainable from the documents which have been brought on record therefore it would be appropriate that the matter may be remanded back for the Deputy Director of Consolidation to consider all relevant aspects afresh and decide after giving opportunity of hearing to the parties concerned.
Having considered the rival submissions and having perused the record, this Court finds that plot nos.924 and 925 are road side plots and they were part of the original holding of the petitioner and therefore the petitioner certainly has a valid grievance in respect of taking away of the original holding plots 924 and 925 from the chak of the petitioner.
Whether the second respondent had any road side plot in her original holding is a matter which requires consideration as also whether the petitioner has obtained excess or under valuation on the road-side as compared to his original holding plots on the road-side.
Accordingly, this Court considers it appropriate to set aside the order dated 07.11.2017 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Bulandshahr and remit the matter back to the Deputy Director of Consolidation to pass a fresh order in accordance with law keeping in mind all relevant aspects including the observations made herein above.
This petition is therefore allowed. The order dated 07.11.2017 is set aside. The Deputy Director of Consolidation shall restore the revision No.954/246 to its original number and shall decide the matter afresh, in accordance with law, after giving opportunity of hearing to both sides keeping in mind the observations made herein above.
Order Date :- 29.11.2017/AKShukla/-