Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents.
Under challenge in this petition is an order dated 20.09.2018 passed by the Settlement Officer, Consolidation, Unnao whereby the appeal filed by respondent no.4 was allowed and the order dated 01.07.2015 passed by the Consolidation Officer was set-aside. It was directed that the Consolidation Officer shall determine valuation of one mango tree situate in chak of chak holder no.610-A i.e. respondent no.4. The petitioner also challenges the order dated 30.07.2019 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation whereby he has dismissed the revision petition filed by him against the order 20.09.2018 passed by the Settlement Officer, Consolidation.
The dispute in this case relates to gata no.2152, which is the original holding of the petitioner and the respondent no.4 where they were co-sharers of half share each. The total area of said plot no.2152 is 0.240 hectare. On the said plot, certain trees are existing, however in CH Form-2A, entry of trees was not found.
It appears that the petitioner filed objection before the Consolidation Officer on 27.05.2015 wherein a prayer was made that on plot no.2152 seven mango trees exist which are more than 30 years old and that plot no.2152 be kept out of consolidation operations. Prior to said objection filed by the petitioner an order was passed on 25.07.2005 whereby plot no.2152 was valued determining the valuation of said plot to be 50 paisa.
At one hand, the petitioner filed objection on 27.05.2015 with the prayer to keep the entire gata no.2152 out of consolidation operation and on the other hand, he also filed restoration application against the order dated 25.07.2005. The Consolidation Officer accepted the restoration application vide his order dated 01.07.2015 and set-aside the order dated 25.07.2005 and ordered that gata no.2152 having an area of 0.240 hectare be kept out of consolidation operation.
Against the aforesaid order, respondent no.4 filed appeal before the Settlement Officer, Consolidation, which has been allowed by the appellate order vide impugned order dated 20.09.2018. The revision petition preferred by the petitioner against the said order dated 20.09.2018 has been dismissed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation vide his order dated 30.07.2019.
The Settlement Officer, Consolidation while allowing the appeal vide his order dated 20.09.2018 has categorically recorded a finding that determination of valuation of plot no.2152 was already made in the year 2005 and the objection by the petitioner was filed for keeping the plot no.2152 out of consolidation operations after ten years, that too at a time when publication under Section 20 of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act was made as back as on 05.03.2012. He has also recorded another categorical finding that the order dated 01.07.2015 by the Consolidation Officer was passed after the consolidation proceedings were confirmed. The appellate court has further observed that once some area of gata no.2152 was given in chak of respondent no.4, then without hearing him no order in respect of exchange rate so far as gata no.2152 is concerned, could have been passed by the Consolidation Officer.
It is noticeable that the Settlement Officer, Consolidation while passing the order dated 20.09.2018 had summoned the report from the Assistant Consolidation Officer, who submitted the same on 19.09.2018. In the said report, it was mentioned that there exists five mango trees on gata no.2152 which however were not recorded in CH Form-2A. He further submitted in the said report that out of five mango trees in gata no.2152, only one mango tree falls in the area of chak allocated to respondent no.4 and rest four mango trees exist in the area of chak allocated to the petitioner. The Settlement Officer, Consolidation thus balanced the equities and found that in case valuation of one mango tree is made, dispute between the parties will get resolved. The Deputy Director of Consolidation has also reiterated the findings recorded by the Settlement Officer, Consolidation and has concurred with the appellate order.
Submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that over his portion of gata no.2152 the petitioner had planted all the mango trees and he is having a claim over only half of the total area of the said plot i.e. over 0.120 hectare and in case entire plot is kept out of consolidation operation, neither the petitioner nor respondent no.4 will have any grievance for the reason that admittedly the petitioner has been in possession over his share of plot no.2152 where mango trees exist.
What is noticeable in this case is that claim of the petitioner for keeping the gata no.2152 out of consolidation operation was rejected way back on 25.07.2005 and thereafter the consolidation proceedings in the village further proceeded and the scheme of consolidation was confirmed and publication under Section 20 of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act was also made on 05.03.2012. Accordingly, any objection after such delay of about ten years that too after confirmation of scheme of consolidation and publication of Section 20 of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, in my considered opinion, could not have been entertained by the Consolidation Officer. Even otherwise, by the order passed by the Settlement Officer, Consolidation, no prejudice is going to be caused to the petitioner inasmuch as he will get compensation in lieu of one mango tree which falls in the area of chak allotted to the respondent no.4 and rest four mango trees will be available to be enjoyed by the petitioner in his area of chak allotted to him.
It is not the case of the petitioner that in any manner he is not being given total area equivalent to the total valuation of original holding of the petitioner. The Settlement Officer, Consolidation in my opinion has passed the order which is just and equitable and hence does not call for any interference by this Court. The Deputy Director of Consolidation has also not committed any illegality in dismissing the revision petition filed by the petitioner.
Resultantly, the writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed.
Order Date :- 29.8.2019 Renu/-