Court No. - 19
Case :- WRIT - B No. - 1289 of 2019 Petitioner :- Umarav Respondent :- Deputy Director Of Consolidation And 32 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Abhishek Rai,Rahul Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Ramesh Chandra Upadhyay,Sanjeev Kumar Yadav
Hon'ble Salil Kumar Rai,J.
Heard Shri Abhishek Rai, counsel for the petitioner and Shri Sanjeev Kumar Yadav, counsel for respondent nos. 4, 5 & 6.
It appears from the record annexed with the writ petition and the supplementary affidavit that against the allotment of Chaks made by the Consolidation Officer, certain appeals were filed before the Settlement Officer of Consolidation who decided the appeals vide orders dated 6.6.2016 and 31.3.2017 and through the said orders also amended the chaks allotted to the petitioner.
After the orders dated 6.6.2016 and 31.3.2017 passed by the S.O.C, the petitioner filed a time barred objection before the Consolidation Officer but the said objections were rejected by the Consolidation Officer vide his order dated 25.11.2017 on the ground that composition of the Chaks allotted to the petitioner had been decided by the orders of the Settlement Officer of Consolidation and therefore, the objections could not be entertained by the Consolidation Officer. Against the order dated 25.11.2017, the petitioner filed appeal before the Settlement Officer of Consolidation which was dismissed by the Settlement Officer of Consolidation vide his order dated 29.12.2017 on the ground that any order granting the reliefs prayed by the petitioner would amount to an amendment and review of the previous orders dated 6.11.2016 and 31.3.2017.
The order dated 29.12.2017 was challenged by the petitioner under Section 48 of the U.P Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as Act, 1953) before the Deputy Director of Consolidation through Revision No.747/519 which has been dismissed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation vide his order dated 25.1.2019. The order 29.12.2017 passed by the Settlement Officer of Consolidation and order dated 25.01.2019 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation have been challenged in the present writ petition.
The grievance of the petitioner is that Plot No.121 and 134 were his original holdings but he has not been allotted Chak on Plot No.121 and 134. A perusal of C.H.Form 23 shows that petitioner has been allotted Chaks on Plot No.62/2 and Plot No.149 which were also his original holdings. In view of the aforesaid, there is no illegality in the allotment of Chaks and in the impugned orders passed by the S.O.C and the D.D.C. The impugned orders cannot be set aside merely because the petitioner was not allotted Chaks on all his original holdings. The allotment of Chak as evident from the records annexed with the writ petition do not violate any provision of Section 19 of the Act, 1953. Apart from the aforesaid, a reading of the order dated 25.1.2019 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation shows that any amendment in Chak as prayed by the petitioner would necessitate amendments in many other Chaks of the tenure holders unnecessarily disturbing the other tenure holders. Further, it is evident that the composition of the Chaks of the petitioner was decided by order dated 6.11.2016 and 31.3.2017 passed by the S.O.C. The orders dated 6.11.2016 and 31.3.2017 were not challenged by the petitioner in Revision before the D.D.C and have also not been challenged in the present writ petition. In view of the aforesaid the issue regarding composition of Chak of the petitioner cannot be examined by this Court.
For the aforesaid reasons, the writ petition lacks merit and is dismissed.
Order Date:26.07.2019 IB