Ramdular v. Deputy Director of Consolidation, Jaunpur on 05 May 2025

Judgment

1. Heard Mr. Shree Prakash Giri & Mr. Rajesh Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Anil Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for respondent no.7, Mr. Pankaj Kumar, learned standing counsel for the state-respondents and Mr.

Azad Rai, learned counsel for the respondent-gaon sabha.

2. Brief facts of the case are that petitioner is chak holder no.360 and plot nos. 826/1 and 826/2, total area 1.1930 hect., are the original plots of the petitioner. Petitioner was proposed single chak on plot nos.825M, 826/1, 828M, 839/1M and 839, total area 1.2493 hect. Respondent no.7/Raj Kishore is chak holder no.1206 and plot nos.367, 386, 500, 501, 504/1, 504/3, 505/1, 505/3, 523, 529, total area 1.4610 hect., having 1/3rd share; plot no. 524, area 0.3990 hect., having 1/3rd share and plot nos. 527, 998/3M, 368M, 626, 827, 1320 along with certain other plots are original plots of respondent nos.7. Respondent no.7 was proposed three chaks by the Assistant Consolidation Officer, 1st chak on plot no.998/3M, 1103/1M, 2nd chak on 826/1M 827M and 3rd chak on 364M, etc. Against the proposal of the Assistant Consolidation Officer, chak objection under Section 20(2) of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as the “U.P. C.H. Act”) were filed by the petitioner as well as respondent no.7. The Consolidation Officer vide order dated 24.12.2020 partly allowed the Case No.2 filed by respondent no.7/Raj Kishore and dismissed the Case/Objection No.238 filed by the petitioner Chhotku. Against the order of the Consolidation Officer dated 24.12.2020, petitioner as well as respondent no.7 have filed chak appeal under Section 21(2) of the U.P. C.H. Act before the Settlement Officer of Consolidation which were registered as Case No.192 & 213 The Settlement Officer of Consolidation heard the appeal and vide order dated 15.3.2021 has allowed the appeal filed by petitioner-Chhotku and rejected the claim of respondent no.7/Raj Kishore. Against the appellate order dated 15.3.2021, respondent no.7/Raj Kishore filed revision under Section 48 of the U.P. C.H. Act before the Deputy Director of Consolidation which was registered as Revision No.518 and vide order dated

15.2.2023 allowed the revision. Hence, this writ petition for the following relief:- (a) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari, calling for record to quash the impugned order dated 15.02.2023 passed by respondent no. 2/ Deputy Director of Consolidation, Prayagraj, (Annexure No. 6) and impugned order dated

24.12.2020 passed by respondent no.4/Chakbandi Officer, Meja/Koaron, Prayagraj (Annexure No. 2) in respect to order passed only in Case No. 238 Chakdar No. 360 Chhotku and Case No. 2 Chakdar 2 No. 1206 Raj Kishor, by which illegally carved out the chak of the petitioner. (b) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus, directing and ordered to be restored/maintained the order dated 15.03.2021 passed by respondent no. 3/Settlement Officer Chakbandi, Prayagraj (Annexure No. 4) in the interest of justice. (c) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus, directing the parties to maintain status quo over the disputed property, during the pendency of this writ petition, in the interest of justice, so that the justice may be done.

3. Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Assistant Consolidation Officer has not made the proposal in accordance with the provisions contained under Section 19 of the U.P. C.H. Act, accordingly, chak objection was filed by the petitioner which was not properly considered and decided by the Consolidation Officer. He submitted that chak appeal filed by the petitioner was rightly decided by the Settlement Officer of Consolidation, adjusting the petitioner as well as respondent no.7 in accordance with the provisions of the U.P. C.H. Act but the revisional court has illegally interferred with the allotment of chak made by the appellate court in proper manner. He further submitted that under the impugned revisional order, petitioner has been deprived from his valuable trees, situated in the plot in question as well as the structure situated over the plot in question. He further submitted that under the impugned order, the petitioner has also been deprived from the facility of irrigation to irrigate his plot. He also submitted that the 3 impugned revisional order dated 15.2.2023, passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation should be set aside and the order dated 15.3.2021 passed by the Settlement Officer of Consolidation be restored. He placed reliance upon the following judgments of the Hon’ble Apex Court in support of his argument:- (1) 1994 0 Supreme (SC) 186, Ramdular vs. Deputy Director of Consolidation, Jaunpur (2) 2014 0 Supreme (AII) 3371, Sukhdeo Singh vs. D.D.C. and Others (3) 1994 2 AIICJ 935, Ramdular vs. Deputy Director of Consolidation, Jaunpur.

4. On the other hand, Mr. A.K. Pandey, learned counsel appearing for respondent no.7 submitted that the Consolidation Officer has rightly made the adjustment between the petitioner and respondent no.7 in the allotment of chak proceeding but the Settlement Officer of Consolidation has illegally dismissed the appeal of respondent no.7 and allowed the appeal of petitioner-Chhotku, without considering the provisions contained under the U.P. C.H. Act. He submitted that petitioner is the original tenure holder of plot no.826 and respondent no.7 is the tenure holder of plot no.827, accordingly, petitioner has been adjusted on plot no.826/1 according to his share in the plot and respondent no.7 has also been adjusted on plot nos. 826, 828 and 839 according to his share in the plot. He further placed the self-sketch map of different stage of consolidation in order to demonstrate that the stage of Assistant Consolidation Officer/Consolidation Officer was just and proper but at the 4 stage of Settlement Officer of Consolidation, the shape of the chak of respondent no.7 has been made multi-cornered which is not fit for cultivation or any purpose. He submitted that the Deputy Director of Consolidation has rightly allowed the revision filed by respondent no.7 and maintained the stage of Consolidation Officer recording finding of fact that by the appellate order, the shape of chak of respondent no.7 has become multi-cornered. He submitted that in view of the finding recorded by the revisional court, no interference is required against the impugned order passed in the allotment of chak proceeding.

5. I have considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perused the records.

6. There is no dispute about the fact that chak objection filed by the petitioner as well as respondent no.7 was decided by the Consolidation Officer vide order dated 24.12.2020 and chak appeal filed by petitioner as well as respondent no.7 was decided by Settlement Officer of Consolidation vide order dated

15.3.2021, dismissing the appeal of respondent no.7 and allowing the appeal of petitioner. There is also no dispute about the fact that the Deputy Director of Consolidation has allowed the revision filed by respondent no.7, setting aside the order of the Settlement Officer of Consolidation and maintaining the stage of Consolidation Officer.

7. In order to appreciate the controversy involved in the matter, the perusal of the self-prepared sketch map in respect to Assistant Consolidation Officer / Consolidation Officer / 5 Settlement Officer of Consolidation, as supplied by learned counsel for respondent no.7 will be relevant which is as under:-

8. The perusal of the chak map fully demonstrates that by order of the Settlement Officer of Consolidation the chak of respondent no.7 (chak holder no.1206) has become eight- cornered which is in violation of Section 19(1)(g) of the U.P. C.H. Act. Section19(1)(g) of the U.P.C.H. Act. provides that every tenure holder is, as far as possible, allotted chaks in conformity with the process of rectangulation in rectangular units.

9. Perusal of Section 19(1)(g) of the U.P. C.H. Act will also be relevant which is as under:-

19. Conditions to be fulfilled by a Consolidation Scheme.— (1) A Consolidation Scheme shall fulfill the following conditions, namely,— 6 (g) every tenure-holder is, as far as possible, allotted chaks in conformity with the process of rectangulation in rectangulation units.

10. The Deputy Director of Consolidation while deciding the revision under the impugned order has recorded finding of fact that the Consolidation officer has allotted rectangular chak to the petitioner but under the appellate order, the chak of respondent no.7 has become multi-cornered. The finding of fact recorded by the revisional court is in accordance with the provisions of the U.P. C.H. Act. The self-prepared sketch map of different stage of consolidation, as quoted above, fully demonstrates that chak of the petitioner was rectangular at the stage of Assistant Consolidation Officer as well as Consolidation Officer, the chak of resondent no.7 was also rectangular at the stage of consolidation officer but at the stage of Settlement Officer of Consolidation, the shape of the chak of respondent no.7 has been badly affected which is against the provisions contained under the U.P. C.H. Act.

11. Considering the entire facts and circumstances, there is no scope of interference against the impugned order passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation in respect to allotment of chak proceeding.

12. The writ petition is dismissed. Order Date :- 5.5.2025 C.Prakash (Chandra Kumar Rai, J.) 7 CHANDRA PRAKASH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad