Court No. - 36
Case :- WRIT - B No. - 3191 of 2018 Petitioner :- Yogendra Kumar Sharma Respondent :- Deputy Director Of Consolidation And 9 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ashish Kumar,Munesh Kumar Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Arun Kumar Srivastava
Hon'ble Mrs. Sunita Agarwal,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Arun Kumar Srivastava who has put in appearance on behalf of respondent No.10.
The amendment in the chak arrangement made by the Deputy Director of Consolidation vide order dated 9.11.2017 has been challenged in the present petition.
From a perusal of the C.H. Form 23 of the petitioner, it is more than apparent that Plot No.297 M etc. and Plot No.652 M etc. are the plots of his original holding and that the petitioner and the contesting respondents are co-sharers of the plots in question.
As per own contention of the petitioner, his share in Plot No.297 M (3.163 Hectares) is 1/6th which comes to approximately 0.597 Hectares. A further perusal of the C.H. Form 23 of the petitioner indicates that at the stage of Assistant Consolidation Officer, the petitioner was provided one chak comprising of four Plot Nos.285M, 295 M, 296/1M & 297 M total area of 1.905 Hectares for a valuation of Rs.152.43 paise.
It appears that objections raised by the petitioner herein with regard to the said arrangement were rejected by the Consolidation Officer and the appeal was also dismissed. The revision filed by the petitioner was withdrawn. However, on a revision filed by another Chakholder/co-sharer namely Vidyawati, chak arrangement proposed by the Assistant Consolidation Officer was altered.
A perusal of the Amendment Chart indicates that now by taking out an area of 0.523 Hectares (for valuation of 41.86 paise), the petitioner has been provided a second chak in Plot No.652M. A further perusal of the Amendment Chart indicates that in the order of the Deputy Director of Consolidation, two chakholders namely Surendra Kumar and Raj Kumar have been provided chak in Plot No.297 M. The result of the arrangement made by the Deputy Director of Consolidation is that out of the total area of 1.474 Hectares of valuation of 117.95 paisa of Plot No.297 M of the petitioner, only an area of 0.523 Hectares for valuation of 41.86 paisa has been taken out from the chak of the petitioner and the petitioner has been left with two chaks comprising of plots of his original holding.
As per the admitted share of the petitioner in Plot No.297 M for an area of 0.597 Hectares, the petitioner has been left with a larger area than that of his share. No prejudice can be said to have been caused to the petitioner.
In view of the above noted facts, this Court does not find any error in the arrangement made by the Deputy Director of Consolidation at the instance of the petitioner.
The writ petition is dismissed as such.
Order Date :- 28.3.2018 Jyotsana