Mahal Singh v. Assistant Director of Consolidation & Ors.

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

#2. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned judgment and orders dated 18.12.1998,

15.05.1995 and 07.05.1993 passed by respondent nos.1, 2 & 3 respectively. Petitioner has further prayed a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents not to give effect to the impugned judgment and order dated

18.12.1998, 15.05.1995 and 07.05.1993 passed by respondent nos.1, 2 & 3.

#3. Present writ petition arises out of the proceedings under section 20 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holding Act, (herein after referred as to the Act). Brief facts, as alleged in the writ petition, interalia, are that the petitioner is the chak holder no.8/51 and the respondent nos.4 & 5 are the chak holders nos. 316 & 390 respectively. These plots have been allotted at the stage of consolidating proceedings. The dispute was in between the petitioner and one Kartar Singh in which an adjustment was made by the Consolidation Officer vide judgment dated 07.05.1993. Thereafter, the petitioner came to know that respondent nos.4 & 5 have been adjusted over his original holding, due to which the petitioner’s chak became rectangular. The chak, as was adjusted over the petitioner’s original holding to respondent nos.4 & 5, was Udan and it was to the great detriment and was highly prejudicial to the petitioner’s interest therefore, the petitioner filed an appeal before the Settlement Officer Consolidation Officer, Haridwar, which was dismissed vide judgment dated 15.05.1995. Aggrieved with the dismissal of appeal, the petitioner filed a revision before Assistant Director of Consolidation, Muzaffarnagar /respondent no.1. But, the respondent no.1 also dismissed the revision vide his judgment and order dated 18.12.1998. Hence, this writ petition.

#4. Refuting the averments made in the writ petition the respondent nos.4 & 5 filed their counter affidavit, in which it has been stated that the order dated 07.05.1993 was passed by the Consolidation Officer in terms of the compromise arrived at in between the petitioner and Kartar Singh and the chaks were allotted according to the compromise. The respondent nos. 4 & 5 have declined that they were adjusted over the original holding of petitioner and the petitioner’s chak had become rectangular. It is stated in the counter affidavit that the petitioner has been allotted chak at his original holding. It is denied that Udan Chak was given to the respondent nos.4 & 5 on the original holding of petitioner. The respondent nos. 4 & 5 were not given Udan Chak on petitioenr’s land. It has further averred in the counter affidavit that the sketch map attached by the petitioner has no authenticity. The respondents further stated that the Appellate Authority after considering the facts and circumstances of the case recorded its findings and the appeal preferred by the petitioner was rightly dismissed. Similarly, the Revisional Court also rightly dismissed the revision filed by the petitioner.

#5. I have heard Shri Sharad Sharma, Senior Advocate assisted by Shri Jagdish Bisht, the learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri R.C. Arya, Brief Honder for the State and Shri Lok Pal Singh, Advocate for respondent nos. 4 & 5 and perused the record.

#6. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner argued that the judgment and order passed by the Courts below are unjust and unwarranted, hence the same are liable to be quashed. He argued that the order of Consolidation Officer has been passed without consent of the petitioner and Kartar Singh, who was contesting the matter before the Consolidation Officer, therefore placement of respondent nos. 4 & 5 over the petitioner’s chak/original holding is illegal and unjustified. He argued that the chaks are liable to be removed from the petitioner’s original holding. He further argued that in the event of shifting of the respondent nos. 4 & 5 from petitioner’s original holding was not possible, then in that event, respondent nos. 4 & 5 should have been adjusted/placed in the northern side to the petitioner’s chak, so that the petitioner’s chak may become rectangular. But the respondent nos. 1 & 2 did not consider this aspect. On the other hand Shri Lok Pal Singh, the learned counsel for respondent nos. 4 & 5 has submitted that the grounds taken in the writ petition are not tenable. He argued that the Consolidation Authorities have recorded findings of fact in allotting the chaks to the respective tenure holders, thus no interference is warranted by this Court and the petitioner is not entitled to any relief.

#7. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on thoughtful consideration of the material available on record, this Court finds that order dated 07.05.1993 passed by Consolidation Officer was in terms of the compromise arrived at between the petitioner and Kartar Singh and their respective chaks were allotted according to the compromise. The Revisional Court on the basis of record held total Rakba in possession of the petitioner was 18-0-0 and in its place he has been allotted the Rakba 16-2-18 in the proposed chak. Deficiency in chak is only 11% which is much less than prescribed limit. The Revisional Court further held that the petitioner will not be benefited by removing the Chakdar towards western side. I do not find any illegality, infirmity or perversity in the orders dated 18.12.1998, 15.05.1995 and 07.05.1993 passed by respondent nos.1,2 & 3 respectively. The petition is devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed.

#8. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed. No order as to costs.

#10. All pending applications also stand disposed of. (V.K. Bist, J.) 26.04.2010 Arpan: