Heard Sri Avadhesh Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing counsel for the State-respondents.
By means of the instant writ petition, the petitioner assails the order passed by D.D.C., Kheri dated 11.04.2002, passed in Revision No. 411 of 2001.
The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner is the original chak holder No.1163. During the consolidation operations, the A.C.O. proposed two chaks for the petitioner and was granted an area of 0.260 hectares on Plot No.1110 on the eastern side of the said plot. However, the O.P. No.2 preferred an appeal before the S.O.C. and had raised an objection that his trees are standing on the western side of Plot No.1110 and as such the A.C.O. has committed an error in failing to consider this aspect of the matter and has alloted the eastern side instead of western side upon which the trees were standing and the petitioner has been alloted the western part.
It was also asserted by the O.P. No.2 that the petitioner had purchased some part of Plot No.1110 and from the sale deed of the petitioner 1/5th area was also indicated as to be existing on the eastern side and thus for the aforesaid reasons before the appellate authority it was urged that the petitioner had been given the eastern side whereas the O.P. No.2 be allowed to retain the western part. However, after hearing the parties the appellate authority by means of order dated 24.08.2001 did not find favour with these submissions of the O.P. No.2 and dismissed the appeal. The O.P. No.2, thereafter preferred the revision before the D.D.C. Kheri registered as Revision No. 411 of 2001 and after hearing the parties, the Revisional Court has allowed the revision by means of order dated 11.04.2002 which is under challenge in this writ petition.
The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that D.D.C. Kheri has erred in allowing the revision inasmuch as it has failed to take note of the fact that the petitioner who was earlier given the western portion of Plot No.1110 with an area of 0.009 hectares, however by the revisional order has enhanced it to 0.260 hectares on the eastern side which is a land of low quality and it has also been submitted that the O.P. No.2 has developed this case regarding the trees only at the appellate stage and which was not taken note of by the appellate authority while dismissing the appeal and under such circumstances the D.D.C. Kheri if at all had taken note of the same ought to have remanded the matter and could not have decided the issue on its own.
It has also been submitted that the allotment of Plot No.1110 on the eastern side in favour of the petitioner is bad and is not in accordance with Section 19 of the U.P. Consolidation and Holdings Act, 1950.
Despite service Sri V.K. Srivastava, learned counsel for the O.P. No.2 has not appeared though had initially filed his counter affidavit. The learned Standing counsel while refuting the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the O.P. No.2 along with its counter affidavit has brought on record, the copy of the sale deed by which the petitioner had purchased land of Plot No.1110 and in the boundaries where reference to the land has been mentioned in the sale deed, it refers to 1/5th portion on the eastern part.
It has also been pointed out by the learned Standing counsel that the specific case of the O.P. No. 2 was that he had planted his trees on the western side of Plot No.1110 and the same finds mention in the inspection report of the A.C.O. and this aspect was not considered by the Consolidation Officer and even though a specific ground was taken in the memo of appeal, yet it did not find favour that S.O.C. as mentioned in its order while dismissing the appeal by means of order dated 24.08.2001. The further submission of the learned Standing counsel is that a very ground upon which the O.P. No.2 has urged that the fact that his trees were standing on the western side and for the said reason he required the S.O.C. to consider and permit him to have these trees, which were on the western side.
In the aforesaid circumstances, the D.D.C. Kheri having considered the entire aspect of the matter and has allowed the revision, which requires no interference from this Court, in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
The Court has considered the rival submission and has also perused the material on record. The only issue which requires to be considered is whether the D.D.C. Kheri was a right in allowing the revision and allotting the O.P. No.2 the Plot No.1110 on the western side. It is the specific pleading as shall be evident from the order of the Consolidation Officer that the O.P. No.2 had specifically raised an objection that the second chak which was being allotted was given in respect of original Plot No.1165 which was a small chak and was not viable and as such it was objected by the O.P. No.2 that his chak may be joined with Plot No.299 so that he could have more compact plot. The A.C.O. by means of order dated 18.07.2000 noting the objections clearly held that the O.P. No.2 was right and accordingly he was given a compact plot from Gata No.1110.
Apart from the aforesaid, the petitioner was also given right on the Plot No.1110 and it is in this background that the controversy arose. The case of the O.P. No.2 that his trees were standing on the western side and, therefore, he preferred an appeal before the S.O.C. specifically stating that his trees which were more than 10 years old on the western side and he should be given the western portion of the said plot whereas the petitioner who had purchased the land by means of the sale deed on the eastern side should be given the same. The S.O.C. did not refer or revert to this aspect of the matter and by merely stating that the submission of the appellant (O.P. no.2 herein) was not justified, consequently dismissed the appeal.
On the other hand, the matter was escalated before the D.D.C. Kheri, who after considering the rival submissions as well as the material on record, has passed the order and has provided that the O.P. No.2 shall be given the area of Plot No.1110 on the western side while the petitioner would be given land on the eastern side.
The basic reason of O.P. No.2 to claim his right on the western side is on account of his standing trees and the specific plea has also been made in paragraph nos.4 and 7 of his counter affidavit.
Considering the material on record as well as the fact that it is not disputed that the O.P. No.2 had his trees on the western side. This Court is of the opinion that D.D.C. Kheri while considering the material has correctly arrived that the finding and has given the land of Plot No.1110 on the western side to the O.P. No.2.
The plea of the petitioner that he has been granted more land on the western side earlier and now it is being given on the eastern side is of a low quality land, however, no material has been brought on record to indicate the valuation of the plot which was made during consolidation operation to establish the aforesaid plea and consequently in absence of any material particulars the plea stands rejected.
In view of the aforesaid, this Court does not find that there is any error in the impugned order passed by D.D.C. Kheri dated 11.04.2002 consequently the petition is devoid of merits and is dismissed and the fact and circumstance, there shall be no order as to costs.
The interim order shall stands discharged.
Order Date :- 12.1.2021 Rahul.