Court No. - 18
Case :- WRIT - B No. - 23295 of 1994 Petitioner :- Udai Bhan Respondent :- D.D.C. And Others Counsel for Petitioner :- A.B. Singh,M.D. Misra Counsel for Respondent :- S.C.,A.K. Mishra,Brijendra Kumar
Hon'ble J.J. Munir,J.
1. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution, challenging the orders dated 23.03.1994, 23.05.1993 and 28.08.1991 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Gorakhpur, the Settlement Officer of Consolidation, Gorakhpur and the Consolidation Officer, Piparaich, Tehsil Sadar, District Gorakhpur, in proceedings under Section 20 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act (for short the 'Act').
2. Heard Sri Muralidhar Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Anil Kumar Singh Bagh`el, learned Addl. C.S.C. appearing on behalf of respondent nos. 1, 2 and 3. No one appears on behalf of respondent nos. 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8, despite service.
3. The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that plot no. 88 is his original holdings, which is the largest area and houses his private source of irrigation. Beside that it also bears trees of different variety like mango, shisham etc. The Consolidation Officer, going against the fundamental principle of carvation of chak allotted the said khasra number to respondent no.4, Ganesh and deprived the petitioner of the maximum part of plot no. 88. The petitioner has also been deprived of his private source of irrigation situate there. The petitioner has been given a chak comprising plot nos. 78, 76 and 87; none of these are part of his original holding. It is the further grievance of the petitioner that the area of land comprising his original holdings in plot no. 88 that has been taken away is valuable roadside land, and the petitioner has been pushed to a remote corner; that beside, he has been deprived of his valuable resources. The petitioner appealed to the Settlement Officer of Consolidation on 23.04.1991. The appeal came up for determination before the Settlement Officer of Consolidation on 23.05.1993. The Settlement Officer of Consolidation modified the order of the Consolidation Officer and made it the worse for the petitioner by pushing the petitioner farther from the roadside part of his land in plot no. 88. The petitioner's specific grievance against the Settlement Officer's orders also is to the effect that he bestowed no consideration upon the petitioner's case about the largest part of his original holding being in plot no. 88, as also the fact that he has been deprived of his source of irrigation. The petitioner's grievance regarding deprivation of his roadside land in khasra no. 88 has also not been considered by the Settlement Officer of Consolidation.
4. The petitioner, aggrieved by the Settlement Officer's determination, filed a Revision to the Deputy Director of Consolidation on 11.06.1993. The Revision aforesaid that was numbered on the file of the Deputy Director of Consolidation as Revision No. 756 'Udai Bhan vs. Ganeshi' came for determination before the Deputy Director of Consolidation on 23.03.1994. The Deputy Director of Consolidation, while deciding the petitioner's Revision has passed an odd order. He has not made petitioner's chak any better for him, as a perusal of it would show with reference to what is relevant under Section 19 of the Act. He has neither restored the petitioner's private source of irrigation to his chak or has he moved him to the roadside part of his original holding in Khasra No.
88. Instead, the odd finding referred to hereinabove that the Deputy Director of Consolidation has recorded is that on a perusal of records, he found that chak holder no. 99, Radheyshyam and chak holder no. 28, Udai Bhan (the petitioner) are father and son. He has gone on to say that so far as the revisionist, Radheyshyam ( who too had filed a revision aggrieved by a common judgment, along with the petitioner) is concerned, his original holding is located in khasra plot no. 89, where he has been given a chak. It is extremely odd to note that the DDC further goes on to say that on the aforesaid khasra number (khasra no. 89 being of the petitioner's father) his son, that is to say, the petitioner has been given a chak. The Deputy Director of Consolidation has then concluded from what he has said earlier that now there is no justification for the petitioner to be given a chak carrying a larger area of his original holding. The Deputy Director of Consolidation has gone a step further to say that because both the revisionists before him are father and son, the source of irrigation located in plot no. 88 is being given to the father, that is to say, Radheyshyam and his chak would include that portion of khasra no.
88. There is absolutely no consideration of the petitioner's grievance that he has not been given land on the roadside, that was part of his original holding in plot no. 88.
5. This Court has no hesitation to say that the Deputy Director of Consolidation has betrayed utter lack of training in the fundamentals of law, or even the formality attending the decision making process in a Court presided over by an Officer not legally trained. The mixing up of a personal relationship between two chak holders for the purpose of allotment of chaks is something that is foreign and extraneous to the scheme of the Act. In fact, it is something foreign to any kind of determination of civil rights of parties, wherever they may be involved. It is indeed true that the rights of parties that have been decided about the allotment of chaks, is nothing but a determination of valuable rights of parties, on the basis of a familial relationship between them. Those rights have to be decided or so to speak, chaks carved on the basis of the provisions of the Act and Rules made thereunder. There, the personal or relationship by blood between chakholders is irrelevant. This Court has, therefore, no hesitation to say that the impugned order passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation proceeds on absolutely irrelevant considerations in making the allotment of chaks between parties.
6. This Court also finds that the Authorities below, too have not considered the petitioner's specific grievance, in accordance with the provisions of Section 19 of the Consolidation of Holdings Act. The legislative endeavour to allot the chak over the largest part of one's original holding, and also the other relevant fact that roadside land was part of the petitioner's holding has not been taken into consideration by any of the Authorities. All the Authorities have wholesomely ignored all relevant considerations under the law, and otherwise which in equity, the law approves. Apart from this fact, the order passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation is also bad on another count. A revisional order on a reading of it, should read like one. This is true also of the order passed by the Settlement Officer of Consolidation in appeal. Both the appellate order and the revisional order impugned, on going through these orders do not read like revisional, or for that matter, appellate orders. Both of them read like two other original orders. A reading of the orders passed by the Settlement Officer of Consolidation and the Deputy Director of Consolidation would show that at the appellate and revisional stages these have not dealt with the case of the party coming up in appeal or revision, and then to reverse or affirm the findings recorded by the Authority of first instance, or by the two Authorities below assigning reasons for differing from those findings, or briefly reasons, for affirming them. It is true that the Revisional Court under the Act has extensive powers to decide all the questions of fact and law, particularly, after the addition of explanation (3) to Section 48 of the Act vide U.P. Act No. 3 of 2002, giving it retrospective effect, with effect from 10.11.1980. But that does not make the Revisional Court a Court of original jurisdiction which remains a Revisional Authority, obliged to write a judgment that deals with the findings of the two Authorities below, and affirm, reverse or modify them for reasons assigned. Indeed, in this case, the impugned order passed by the Revisional Court and the Appellate Court, together with the Authority of first instance, reads like three original judgments.
7. In the result, this writ petition succeeds and is allowed in part. The impugned orders passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation dated 23.03.1994 passed in Revision No. 854 'Radheyshyam vs. Varisht and others' and Revision No. 756 'Udai Bhan and Ganeshi and others' is hereby quashed.
8. The matter is remanded to the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Pargana Haweli, Tehsil Sadar, District Gorakhpur who will decide the Revision afresh, bearing in mind what has been said in the body of this judgment. The Deputy Director of Consolidation shall decide the Revision afresh after hearing all parties concerned within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.
9. There shall be no order as to costs.
Order Date :- 21.8.2019 Deepak