Ram Prakash v. Maharaj Singh and others)
Case Details
Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:121742 Court No. - 18 Case :- WRIT - B No. - 1934 of 2023 Petitioner :- Maharaj Singh Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Babhru Vahan Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Upendra Kumar Pandey Hon'ble Chandra Kumar Rai,J. 1.Heard Mr. Babhru Vahan Singh, Counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for State-respondents and Mr. Upendra Kumar Pandey Counsel for respondent No.3. 2. With the consent of the learned counsel or the parties writ
Decision
petition is being heard and disposed of finally without inviting counter affidavit. 3.The instant writ petition has been filed for quashing the impugned order dated 24.02.2023 passed by Additional District Magistrate (F & R)/Deputy Director of Consolidation, Mainpuri/Respondent No.2 in computerized Revision No.202354014900000050 (Ram Prakash Vs. Maharaj Singh and others). 4. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner is chak holder No.313 and original plots of the petitioner are 1009, 887, 888, 889, 891. Petitioner was proposed single chak on plot No.873/3 M etc. Contesting respondent No.3 is chak holder No.390 and Original plot of contesting respondent No.3 are plot No.1009, 887, 888, 889, 891, 892 and contesting respondent No.3 was proposed two chaks first chak on plot No.353/3 and second chak on plot No.888 etc. Against the proposal of Assistant Consolidation officer, chak objection has been filed by the contesting respondent No.3 Ram Prakash which was dismissed by Consolidation officer and order was maintained in appeal. Against the order of Consolidation Officer and Settlement officer consolidation, respodnetn No3 filed revision under Section 48 of U.P.C.H. Act which was registered as revision No.202354014900000050 (Ram Prakash Vs. Maharaj Singh and others) before Deputy Director of Consolidation. The Deputy Director of Consolidation vide order dated 24.02.2023 allowed the revision and disturbed the petitioner's chak hence this writ petition. 5. Counsel for the petitioner submitted that chak as proposed to the petitioner was maintained up to Settlement Officer Consolidation stage. He further submitted that in revision without considering the case of the petitioner and comparative hardship of the petitioner revision has been allowed by passing cryptic order mentioning that claim of the revisionist is justified. He further submitted that revisional jurisdiction cannot be exercised in such a manner, as such revisional order be set aside and order of consolidation officer and Settlement officer of Consolidation be affirmed. 6. On the other hand, Mr. Upendra Kumar Pandey, counsel for respondent No.3 submitted that Deputy Director of Consolidation has adjusted the chak of the petitioner as well as contesting respondent No.3 in accordance with law. He further submitted that entire fact for allotment of chak has been taken into consideration. He further submitted that it is not possible under the U.P.C.H. Act to allot every original holding to the original tenure holder or to redress each and every demand of the tenure holder. He further submitted that no interference is required against the impugned order, as such, the writ petiton is liable to be dismissed. 7. I have considered the arguments advanced by the counsel for the parties and perused the record. 8. There is no dispute about the fact that matter relates to the allotment of chak and chak proposed to the parties was maintained up to the appellate stage. There is no dispute about the fact that under the impugned revisional order, the chak of the petitioner has been disturbed. 9. Since the Deputy Director of Consolidation has exercised the revisional jurisdiction under Section 48 of U.P.C.H. Act and interference has been made at the revisional stage, as such unless reason is assigned and comparative hardship of both the parties is not considered, interference at the revisional stage will not be in the interest of justice. 10. This Court has held from time to time that if the interference has been made at the revisional stage, then it is incumbent upon the revisional Court to consider the comparative hardship of both the parties and record the finding supported by reason. The order of revisional court dated 24.02.2023 runs as follows: नययययलय उप ससचयलक चकबनदद ममनपपरद। ननगरयनद ससखयय- 202354014900000050 अनतगरत धयरय 48(1) जजत चकबनदद अधधननयम ममजय खजपरयरय इजजतपपर परगनय व तहसदल करहल धजलय ममनपपरद रयमपकयश बनयम महयरयज धससह आनद ननररय ………….. हचतय हह ममरम दयरय उभयपकक कम नवदयन अधधवकयओस कक बहस एवस तकरस कज नवधधवत सपनय तथय गयम कम अनभलमखक एवस चक भभनचत कय अवलजकन नकयय गयय। गयम कम चक भभनचत कम अवलजकन एवस अनभलमखक कम परदकर करनम कम उपरयनत इस ननषकरर पर पहह ह नक ननगरयनदकतयर कम मभल जजत कम गयटय ससखयय-888 आनद कज लमकर चक पनदष नकयय जयनय ननगरयनदकतयर कक मयहग उनचत पतदत हजतद हम। बनदजवसत अधधकयरद चकबनदद ममनपपरद दयरय पयररत आदमश मम ससशजधन करतम हहऐ ननगरयनदकतयर कक ननगरयनद सवदकयर नकयम जयनम यजगय हम। आदमश उपरजक नववमचनय कम आधयर पर ननगरयनदकतयर चकदयर ससखयय-390 कक ननगरयनद सवदकयर कक जयतद हम, ससलग ससशजधन तयधलकय धजस पर ममरम हसतयकर हम आदमश कय असग रहमगद, इस ससशजधन सम चक ससखयय- व नयलद पभयनवत हजतम हम पभयनवत चकदयरक कज आकयर पत- 390,313, 23 भयग-1 उदरर जयरद हज, सथल पर सदमयसकन कक कययरवयहद कक जयवम, नदनयसकक- 24.02.2023 पतयवलद वयद अनपपयलन दयधखल दफतर हक। ( रयम जद नमश) अपर धजलयधधकयरद (नव०/रय०)/डद०डद०सद० ममनपपरद। दयरय ममरम मम आदमश आज उनमपक नययययलय नदनयसनकत एवस उदजनरत नकयय गयय हम। यह ननररय/ हसतयकररत/ 11. Considering the order passed by the revisional court as well as provisions contained under Section 48 of the U.P.C.H. Act the impugned revisional order dated 24.02.2023 cannot be sustained in the eye of law. The impugned order dated 24.02.2023 passed by respondent No.2 is hereby set aside and writ petition is allowed in part. The matter is remitted back before the respondent No.2 to decide the revision afresh expeditiously preferably within a period of three months from the date of production of certified copy of this order after affording opportunity of hearing to both the parties and considering the comparative hardship of both the parties without granting unnecessary adjournments to either of the parties. 12. Respondent Nos.4 and 5 has not been heard by this Court before passing this order as respondent No.3 in the only necessary party, who is represented by learned Counsel. 13. It is material that respondent No.3 has filed the revision which was allowed vide impugned order. It is further directed that respondent No.2 shall afford opportunity of hearing to all the parties before deciding the revision on merit. Order Date :- 31.5.2023 PS* Digitally signed by :- PRITI SHARMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad