High Court
Case Details
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:45990 Court No. - 50 Case :- WRIT - B No. - 2883 of 1992 Petitioner :- Bal Bir Singh Respondent :- Asstt. Director Of Consolidation And Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Anita Tripathi Counsel for Respondent :- J.N. Rai,L.D.Rajdhar,P.K. Singh,Pankaj Kumar Shukla,Rajul Bhargava,S.C.,S.S.Sisodia,V.K. Singh Hon'ble Chandra Kumar Rai,J. Civil Misc. Substitution Application dated 01.04.2025 filed on behalf of the petitioner in respect to deceased respondents is taken on record. Order on Civil Misc. Substitution Application dated 01.04.2025 1. OfÏce is directed to allot the number to the instant applications.
Legal Reasoning
7. There is no dispute about the plot no. 231 is the original plot of the petitioner in which his source of irrigation situated. There is also no dispute about the fact that at the revisional stage the plot no. 231 has been taken away from chak of the petitioner and petitioner has been allotted chak on two different plots. 8. The perusal of C.H. Form-23 as well as map annexed alongwith writ petition demonstrate that plot no. 231 is the original plot of the petitioner in which his source of irrigation was situated. The proposal was made by the Assistant Consolidation OfÏcer allotting the plot no. 231 to the petitioner which was maintained up to Settlement OfÏcer Consolidation stage as such the interference made at the revisional stage by the Deputy Director of Consolidation taking away the area from plot no. 231 in which petitioner's source of irrigation is situated is not according to the provisions contained under section 19 of U.P. C.H. Act. 9. It is material to mention that the instant petition was filed before this Court about 33 years before and relates to allotment of chak proceeding as such one stage of allotment of chak proceeding is to be given finality so that gaon sabha can also start development work in the village which is held up due to operation of interim order in this petition. 10. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, the impugned revisional orders dated 30.11.1990 and 18.11.1991 passed by respondent no. 1 cannot be sustained in the eye of law as such the impugned orders dated 30.11.1990 and 18.11.1991 passed by respondent no. 1 are set aside. 11. The writ petition is allowed and the stage of Settlement OfÏcer of Consolidation is hereby maintained.
Arguments
2. Heard Mr. B.G. Bhai, Tripathi, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Pankaj Kumar Shukla, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent no. 10-Gaon Sabha as private counsel and learned Standing Counsel for the State. 3. The instant application has been filed in respect to deceased respondent no. 2, 4, 2/3, 5/1, 5/3, 6, 7 and 8 alongwith prayer for condonation of delay. 4. Explanation given for condondation of delay is satisfactory. Delay in filing substitution application is condoned. 5. Let the word 'deceased' be mentioned against the name of respondent nos. 2, 4, 2/3, 5/1, 5/3, 6, 7, 8 and the name of their legal heirs as mentioned in paragraph nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8 of the application be substituted as respondent nos. 2/1, 2/2, 2/3, 2/3/1, 2/3/2, 4/1, 4/2, 4/3, 4/4, 5/1/1, 5/1/2, 5/3/1, 5/3/2, 5/3/3, 6/1, 6/2, 6/3 7/1, 8/1 and 8/2. 6. Applications are accordingly allowed. Order on Civil Misc. Substitution Application filed in respect of deceased respondent no. 5. 1. True/attested copy of the substitution application filed in the year 2009 in respect to deceased respondent no. 5 is taken on record as original copy is not traceable. 2. OfÏce is directed to allot number to the instant applications. 3. The instant application has been filed in respect to deceased respondent no. 5 alongwith the prayer for condonation of delay. 4. Explanation given for delay in filing the substitution is satisfactory. Delay in filing the substitution application is condoned. 5. Let the word 'deceased' be mentioned against the name of respondent no. 5 and the name of his legal heir as mentioned in para no. 2 of the afÏdavit be substituted as respondent nos. 5/1 to 5/4. Order on Writ Petition 1. Heard Mr. B.G. Bhai, Tripathi, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Pankaj Kumar Shukla, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent no. 10-Gram Sabha as private counsel and learned Standing Counsel for the State. 2. The brief facts of the case are that petitioner is chak holder no. 125 and the original plot of the petitioners are 231, 216-A, 216-B, 275, 284, 127 and 261, respondent nos. 2, 3 and 6 are co-tenant in the aforementioned plot having 1/2 share. Petitioner's source of irrigation is situated in plot no. 231. A proposal made by the Assistant Consolidation OfÏcer allotting three chak to petitioner was maintained up to stage of Settlement OfÏcer, Consolidation with minor modification. Several revisions were filed under section 48 of U.P. C.H. Act before the Deputy Director of Consolidation Revision No. 1248 was filed by the respondent no. 2-Brij Nandan impleading the petitioners alongwith other as opposite party. The Deputy Director of Consolidation while deciding all the revisions together including the revision no. 1248 vide order dated 30.11.1990 disturbed the petitioner chak by allotting plot nos. 228, 229 as well as 284/2 after excluding his original plot no. 231 in which his source of irrigation was situated. The restoration application filed by the petitioner against the order of the Deputy Director of Consolidation was dismissed vide order dated 18.12.1991. Hence this writ petition filed before this court for seeking following reliefs:- "(i) to issue a writ order or direction in the nature of certiorary quashing the impugned order dated 30.11.1990 and 18.11.1991 (Annexure No. III and IV). (ii) to issue a writ order or direction in nature of mandamus directing the respondents to not to interfere in peaceful possession of the petitioner over the land in dispute. (iii) to issue any other order or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the interest of petitioner in the circumstances of the case. (iv) to award the cost of this petition in favour of the petitioner." 3. This Court entertained the matter on 24.01.1992 as well as stayed the operation of the order dated 30th November, 1990. The aforementioned interim order was modified on 29.09.2004 directing the parties to maintain status-quo in pursuance of the aforementioned order. Counter afÏdavit was filed on behalf of the respondent nos. 2 and 4. Petitioner has filed his rejoinder afÏdavit also. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that petitioner was proposed chak on his original plot no. 231 in which his source of irrigation was situated and the proposal was maintained up to settlement ofÏcer consolidation stage with slight modification. He further submitted that in revisional exercise of jurisdiction the petitioner chak has been disturbed by taking out his original plot no. 231 in which his source of irrigation was situated and in lie thereof he was allotted chak at two places which is wholly illegal. He submitted that in writ petition interim order was granted in the year 1992 which is still in operation as such impugned revisional order should be set aside and the stage of Settlement OfÏcer, Consolidation so far as, it relates to chak of the petitioner should be maintained. 5. Mr. Pankaj Kumar Shukla, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent no. 10-Gaon Sabha submitted that due to the interim order granted in the instant petition the interest of Gaon Sabha is effected as the the Gaon Sabha is not able to do development work in the village in question, as such the matter should be heard and decided finally or interim order should be modified so that Gaon Sabha can start development work in the village. 6. I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the respondent no. 10-Gaon Sabha, learned Standing Counsel for the State and perused the record.
Decision
12. No order as to costs. Order Date :- 2.4.2025 Vikram Digitally signed by :- VIKRAM SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad