Anokhey Lal v. Jagdish and another)
Case Details
Court No. - 5 Case :- WRIT - B No. - 111 of 2023 Petitioner :- Bal Mukund Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 8 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Kripa Shanker Yadav,Manish Dev Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Brajesh Shukla Hon'ble Dinesh Pathak,J.
Legal Reasoning
8. The Settlement Officer of Consolidation and the Deputy Director of Consolidation both have concurrently discarded the claim of the petitioner. The plea as raised on behalf of the petitioner is unfounded on the law and fact. The Deputy Director of Consolidation has decided the revision after considering the plea, as raised by the petitioner, in detail. Considering the facts of the case, it would not be viable to suggest that the petitioner has been granted lesser area over plot no. 161, towards the roadside, than the area what he possessed in his original holding. There is nothing on record to demonstrate as to how petitioner is prejudiced, or is there any likelihood of causing miscarriage of justice to him, due to the impugned orders under challenge. There is no illegality, perversity or ambiguity in the impugned orders which may warrant indulgence of this Court in exercise of its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. No justifiable ground is made out to interfere in the orders under challenge.
Arguments
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent nos. 1 to 3 and learned counsel for the caveators-respondent nos. 6 and 7. 2. Supplementary affidavit filed on behalf of the petitioner is taken on record. 3. The petitioner has invoked the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dated 23.09.2022 (Annexure no. 6) passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation in Revision No. Revision No. 321 (Computer Case No. 2021531207000257) (Anokhey Lal vs. Jagdish and another). 4. In view of the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case and the order proposed to be passed by this Court, instant writ petition is being decided finally at the admission stage with the consent of the counsel for the parties without calling for their respective affidavits in the present writ petition (counter affidavit and rejoinder affidavit). 5. Instant writ petition is arising out of provisional consolidation scheme. The petitioner has been proposed chak no. 404 at one place consist of plot nos. 161/1, 163 and 164, however, contesting respondents have been proposed chak no. 416 at one place consist of plot nos. 161/1, 163 and 164. Objection under Section 21(1) of U.P.C.H. Act has been filed on behalf of the contesting respondents (respondent nos. 4 to 8) beseeching carvation of their chak over plot no. 161/1 abutting road side. The Consolidation Officer, vide order dated 07.10.2021, has rejected the objection on the ground that remaining chak holders would be affected. The Settlement Officer of Consolidation, on appeal being filed on behalf of the contesting respondents, has allowed the appeal and placed the chak of the contesting respondents abutting the road over plot no. 161/1. The Deputy Director of Consolidation, on revision being filed on behalf of the petitioner, has dismissed the revision affirming the order passed by the Settlement Officer of Consolidation. Having been aggrieved, instant writ petition has been filed on behalf of the petitioner. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, due to the order passed by the Settlement Officer of Consolidation, chak of the petitioner became "L" shaped and multi-cornered which is difficult for cultivation. It is further submitted that the respondents are claiming more area than their share over plot no. 161/1. It is next submitted that the impugned orders passed by the Settlement Officer of Consolidation and the Deputy Director of Consolidation are liable to be quashed being illegal, unwarranted under the law and tainted with irregularity. 6. Learned counsel for the respondent nos. 6 and 7 has contended that the petitioner is not affected due to the order passed by the Settlement Officer of Consolidation, where contesting respondents have been allotted area abutting the road over plot no. 161 where petitioners are also co-sharers. It is further submitted that the Settlement Officer of Consolidation and the Deputy Director of Consolidation have properly considered the case of the parties and allotted the area abutting the road according to the share of the respondents. It is next contended that the instant writ petition, being devoid on merits and misconceived, is liable to be dismissed. 7. Having considered the rival submissions advanced by the counsel for the parties and perusal of record, it reveals that both the parties are co-sharers of the plot in question i.e. 161/1 along with some other co-sharers. The petitioner has raised dispute with respect to the allotment of chak to the contesting respondents over plot no. 161 abutting the road on the ground that they have been allotted more are than their share abutting the road and his chak became "L" shaped. Perusal of memo of revision, filed on behalf of the petitioner, reveals that no such plea has been taken by the petitioner before the Deputy Director of Consolidation. In the memo of revision he is claiming maximum area adjacent to the road side over plot no. 161 on the basis of mutual understanding took place between the co- sharers. There is nothing on the record to demonstrate that any such mutual understanding has taken place between the parties, whereas contesting respondents have denied the factum of mutual understanding as claimed by the petitioner. Before the Deputy Director of Consolidation the petitioner/revisionist has claimed carvation of chak on the basis of lots allotted by the court competent in a case for partition. Dealing with the matter, the Deputy Director of Consolidation has given a categorical finding that court competent has not made any abservation with respect to the area belongs to the parties abutting the road. The sketch map and village map, as filed by the petitioner along with supplementary affidavit, do not support the case of the petitioner qua carvation of chak in "L" shaped due to the order passed by the Settlement Officer of Consolidation. Perusal of village map reveals that maximum area towards the roadside proposed in the chak of the petitioner and slight multi-cornered chak has been made because of plot no. 161/2, which is situated in the south-west corner that too from the stage of Assistant Consolidation Officer.
Decision
9. Resultantly, the present writ petition, being devoid on merits and misconceived, is dismissed with no order as to costs. Order Date :- 24.1.2023 Pkb/ Digitally signed by :- PRAMOD KUMAR BAJPAI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad