Court No. - 36
Case :- WRIT - B No. - 3168 of 2018 Petitioner :- Shree Prakash Respondent :- D.D.C. Mahoba And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Nand Kishor Mishra Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Anuj Kumar,Chandra Prakash Tiwari
Hon'ble Mrs. Sunita Agarwal,J.
Supplementary affidavit filed today is taken on record.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Chandra Prakash Tiwari, learned counsel who has put in appearance on behalf of respondent no. 3.
The present writ petition arises out of the order passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation in a proceeding arising out of chak arrangement.
In the order impugned, it is categorically recorded by the Deputy Director of Consolidation that plot nos. 2357/1 and 2357/2 total area 0.92 hectares is a valuable plot which is adjacent to the National Highway. The said plot is original holding of the revisionist in Revision No. 36 of 2017-18. Out of the total area of 0.92 hectares, only an area of 0.54 hectares was provided in the chak of revisionist namely respondent no. 3. Similarly the plot no. 1708 area 2.46 acres is the original holding of the revisionist in Revision No. 37 of 2016-17. The said plot is also a valuable land situated near 'Abadi'. Out of the total area of 2.46 acres, the revisionist Shyam Sundar was allotted only 2.00 acres of the said plot.
The valuable plots of the original holding of contesting respondent no. 3 were illegally included in chak of the petitioner herein. The amendment in the consolidation scheme prepared by the Assistant Consolidation Officer (affirmed by the appellate court) has been made by the revisional court with the findings therein that by adjustment made as per the amendment chart, each of the tenure holders (party to the revision) would get plots of his original holding.
A perusal of the amendment chart and CH-Form 23 of the petitioner appended with the supplementary affidavit shows that by way of arrangement made by the Deputy Director of Consolidation vide order dated 23.1.2018, the petitioner has been provided chak in plot nos. 786/3, 786/10 and 786/8 which are plots of his original holding. Similarly the respondent no. 3 is provided the valuable plots of her original holding.
The finding returned by the Deputy Director of Consolidation with regard to plot nos. 2357/1 and 2358/1 being plots of original holding of the contesting respondent no. 3 and the said plots being valuable lands adjacent to the National Highway is not disputed.
In view of the above noted facts, this Court does not find any error in the arrangement made by the Deputy Director of Consolidation.
Even otherwise, as per the decision of the Apex Court in Preetam Singh vs. Assistant Director of Consolidation reported in AIR 1996 SC 2881, the Deputy Director of Consolidation is having a wide power under Section 48 (1) of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act to look into the propriety, legality and correctness of the order passed by the subordinate Consolidation court.
In view of the above discussion, the writ petition is found devoid of merits and hence dismissed.
Order Date :- 27.3.2018 Brijesh