Court No. - 5
Case :- WRIT - B No. - 3655 of 2018 Petitioner :- Veerendra Kumar Respondent :- Deputy Dirctor(Consolidation) And 2 Ors Counsel for Petitioner :- Krishan Mohan Mishra Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Prabal Kumar Dixit,Ratnesh Mishra
Hon'ble Pradeep Kumar Singh Baghel,J.
The petitioner has preferred this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ of certiorari to quash the order passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Etawah dated 20th January, 2018.
It is contended by the petitioner that the order of the Deputy Director of Consolidation is illegal and has been passed without making any spot inspection.
I have heard Sri K.M. Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for the consolidation authorities, and Sri P.K. Dixit, learned Advocate, who has put in appearance on behalf of respondent no. 3.
From the material on the record it appears that previously the petitioner, who is Chak Holder No. 255, was allotted chak on Plot No. 69. A chakroad was carved out between his Plot No. 69, which has divided his plot in two parts. An educational institution, namely, M.B.S. Public School, respondent no. 3, is situated on Plot No. 75. By the impugned order the Deputy Director of Consolidation has removed the chakroad from Plot No. 69 and has given it adjacent to Plot No. 69, which will facilitate the students to reach the institution. In my view, the order of the Deputy Director of Consolidation is equitable and no interference is called for.
Allotment of chak is made under Section 19 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (for short, "the Act"), wherein some principles have been laid down. Learned counsel for the petitioner has failed to point out any illegality in the impugned order, which is contrary to the principles laid down under Section 19 of the Act.
This Court in a long line of decisions has held that in the matter of allotment of chak this Court ordinarily should not interfere unless there is a gross violation of the principles enumerated under Section 19 of the Act. Reference may be made to the judgments of this Court in the cases of Brijpal Singh and etc.
v. Assistant Director, Consolidation, Mathura and others, 1997 All.L.J. 1115, and Amarjit Singh v. Assistant Director of Consolidation, Jaunpur and others, 1998 (89) RD 231. In the writ petition no such ground has been taken. Hence, in my view, in such a petty matter, which does not cause any prejudice to petitioner, interference under Article 226 of the Constitution is unwarranted. Therefore, I decline to interfere in the matter. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed.
No order as to costs.
Order Date :- 25.4.2018 SKT/-