High Court
Case Details
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:79559 Court No. - 50 Case :- WRIT - B No. - 7787 of 1993
Legal Reasoning
7. There is no dispute about the fact that in the chak appeal filed by the petitioner, the petitioner has been adjusted on her original plot no.463, etc. but in chak revision, the claim of the respondent no.3 was for allotment of plot no.920 which was not allotted to petitioner at any stage but the petitioner's chak has been disturbed. 8. The perusal of the impugned revisional order along with schedule annexed with the order demonstrates that the comparative hardship of the petitioner has not been considered at all in order to accommodate respondent no.3 and the petitioner's chak has been disturbed although there was no claim of respondent no.3 regarding petitioner's original plot no.463 which were allotted to petitioner by the Settlement Officer of Consolidation. 9. This Court in the case reported in 2005 (99) R.D. 6, Mahabeer Vs. Deputy Director of Consolidation, Jaunpur and Others has held that comparative hardship of both the parties should be considered before disturbing chak of the parties at revisional stage. 10. Considering the aforementioned facts and circumstances of the case, the impugned revisional order dated 30.1.1993 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation/respondent no.1 is liable to be set aside and the same is hereby set aside.
Arguments
Petitioner :- Smt.Jagdei Kumar Respondent :- D.D.C. Counsel for Petitioner :- Vishesh Kumar Counsel for Respondent :- Abhai Raj Singh,M.C.Umrao,S.C. Hon'ble Chandra Kumar Rai,J. 1. Heard Mr. Vishesh Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Mohan Yadav, holding the brief of Sri Abhai Raj Singh, learned counsel for the substituted legal heirs of respondent no.3 and Sri Pankaj Kumar, learned standing counsel for the state-respondents. 2. Brief facts of the case are that petitioner is chak holder no.364. Respondent no.3/Ram Sewak is chak holder no.1512, respondent no.4/Kamta Prasad is chak holder no.1188 and respondent no.6/Smt. Satyawati is chak holder no.1735. Assistant Consolidation Officer has proposed two chaks to petitioner, first chak was proposed to petitioner on plot no.423/2 and second chak was proposed to petitioner on plot nos.883/2 & 883/3. Plot nos.463M & 883/2 are original plots of the petitioner. Against the proposal of the Assistant Consolidation Officer, petitioner filed chak objection, claiming allotment on her original plot no.463 in which her well was situated but relief was not granted to petitioner. Against the order of the Consolidation Officer, two appeals under Section 21(2) of the U.P. C.H. Act was filed, one appeal by respondent no.6 which was registered as Case No.601 and another appeal has been filed by petitioner-Smt. Jagdei which was registered as Appeal No.467. Both the appeals were clubbed and heard together. The Settlement Officer of Consolidation vide order dated 23.5.1991 allowed both the appeals, allotting plot nos. 451/1 and 463 in the chak of the petitioner. Against the appellate order dated 23.5.1991, revision under Section 48 of the U.P. C.H. Act was filed by respondent no.3, which was registered as Revision No.830. The aforementioned revision was heard by the Deputy Director of Consolidation and the same was decided vide order dated 30.1.1993, affecting the chak holder nos.1512, 364, 1188 and 1735. Under the impugned revisional order, chak of the petitioner has also been disturbed by taking out plot nos. 751, 463, etc. from the chak of the petitioner and the petitioner has been allotted chak on plot no.423/2. Hence, this writ petition for the following reliefs:- "(a) Issue a writ, order or rule or direction in the nature of certiorari, quashing the impugned order of respondent no.1 dated 30.1.1993 (Annexure No.2) and restoring the impugned order of the respondent no.2 dated 25.5.1991 (Annexure no.2 to the writ petition) (b) Issue a writ, rule, order or direction in the nature of mandamus, commanding the respondent no.1 not to deprive the petitioner from the original holding from gata no.463." 3. This Court entertained the matter on 12.3.1993 and stayed the operation of the impugned order dated 30.1.1993. In pursuance of the order dated 2.12.1993, parties have exchanged affidavits. 4. Counsel for the petitioner submitted that chak appeal filed by the petitioner has been decided in proper manner, considering the grievance of the petitioner for allotment of chak on original plot no.463. He submitted that in chak revision filed by respondent no.3, petitioner's chak has been disturbed without considering the comparative hardship of the petitioner in proper manner. He submitted that without considering the case of the petitioner, the original plot allotted to the petitioner at the Settlement Officer of Consolidation stage, has been taken away from the chak of the petitioner, as such, the impugned revisional order should be set aside and the order of the Settlement Officer of Consolidation should be maintained. 5. On the other hand, Sri Mohan Yadav, learned counsel appearing for respondent no.3 submitted that revision filed by the petitioner has been rightly allowed under the impugned revisional order. He further submitted that the petitioner has taken specific ground in his grounds of revision for allotment of his original plot no.920 in which his valuable trees are situated. He submitted that considering the case of the petitioner in revision, the Deputy Director of Consolidation has allowed the petitioners' revision. He submitted that no interference is required in the matter and the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. 6. I have considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perused the records.
Decision
11. The writ petition is allowed in part and the matter is remitted back before respondent no.1/Deputy Director of Consolidation, Fatehpur to register the Revision No.830, under Section 48 of the U.P. C.H. Act on its original number and decide the same afresh, after affording opportunity of hearing to all the parties, considering the comparative hardship of all the chak holders, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of 3 months from the date of production of the certified copy of the order, in accordance with law. Order Date :- 14.5.2025 C.Prakash Digitally signed by :- CHANDRA PRAKASH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad