Court No. - 9
Case :- WRIT - B No. - 148 of 2019 Petitioner :- Sadhu Singh And Another Respondent :- Deputy Director Of Consolidation And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Rahul Kumar Tyagi Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Mahesh Narain Singh
Hon'ble Anjani Kumar Mishra,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Mahesh Narain Singh for the Gaon Sabha, respondent no.3.
The writ petition arises out of proceedings for allotment of chaks and is directed against the order dated 28.09.2018 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Hapur as also the order dated 29.11.2017 passed by the Consolidation Officer.
It appears that Suneel Kumar, the petitioner no.2, filed an objection under Section 21 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act regarding Chak No.1080. His demand was that in the chak proposed to him at the ACO stage, his tube well situated on plot no.353, stood excluded therefrom.
It was also found upon a spot inspection that the objectors' tube well was situated on the north eastern corner of plot no.353 abutting the chak road. The Consolidation Officer also observed that as far as plot no.332 was concerned, the objector and his brother chak holder no.1079 and his mother chak holder no.3070 were co-tenure holder.
Consequently, the objection was allowed and the chaks were modified in such a manner that both the brothers were allotted chaks having an identical frontage abutting a chak road.
Against this order, three revisions were filed. Two of them were filed by the petitioner no.1 while the third revision was filed by the petitioner no.2.
From a perusal of the impugned order and also from the submissions made before this Court, the dispute is that the chak of the revisionist, abutting the chak road has been reduced and therefore, the revision.
The revision has been dismissed holding that the chaks allotted by the Consolidation Officer were eminently just and in consonance with the provisions contained in Section 19 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act.
Again before this Court, the argument being raised is that more area of plot no.354 be allotted to the the petitioners on the ground that it is valuable road side land. It should therefore, have been excluded from the consolidation operations or else included in their chaks.
The road in question is a mere chak road. The notifications issued by the State Government, which provide that valuable road side land should either be allotted in the chak of the original tenure holder or should be excluded from the consolidation operations is with regard to main roads or highways, which land is commercially valuable. The Government orders do not apply to chak roads and therefore, I do not find any merit in the contention of counsel for the petitioners.
Reliance upon the judgement of the High Court dated 15.03.2018 passed in Writ-B No.29311 of 2018, Dhanpal and others Vs. Deputy Director of Consolidation and another does not help the petitioners as it is not on the point which is being urged. The case cited pertains to allotment of an uran chak. No such issue is involved in the petition at hand. The judgement cited therefore, it not applicable in the facts and circumstances of the instant case.
Besides, this Court is in agreement with the finding returned by the Deputy Director of Consolidation that the allotment made by the order of the Consolidation Officer on the objection of the petitioner no.2 was just and equitable and does not call for any interference.
The writ petition is therefore, without merit and is dismissed.
Order Date :- 22.1.2019 RKM