High Court
Case Details
Court No. - 51 Case :- WRIT - B No. - 2147 of 2022 Petitioner :- Ramashrey Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 36 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Jamil Ahamad Azmi,Mariyam Azmi Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Dinesh Pathak,J.
Legal Reasoning
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel representing respondents no. 1 to 4. Challenge in the instant writ petition is to the order dated July 13, 2021 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation affirming the order dated 30.06.2002 passed by the Settlement Officer of Consolidation in an appeal arising out of the order dated 28.08.1995 passed by the Consolidation Officer in a proceedings under Section 21 (1) of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act (in brevity "U.P. C.H. Act). The grievance of the petitioner is that he has illegally been displaced from his original holding without any cogent reason. Facts culled out from the averments made in the writ petition are that during the Provisional Consolidation Scheme, Badri Prasad (father of the petitioner) has been proposed Chak No. 103 at two places. First Chak consists plot no. 203 and 204 and second Chak consists plot no. 274, 275, 288 and 289. It appears that one Ram Karan (predecessors in the interest of respondent no. 18/1 to 18/3/2) has filed objection, which was allowed by the Consolidation Officer, vide order dated 28.08.1995. Having been aggrieved by the order passed by the Consolidation Officer, Badri Prasad had preferred an appeal, which was dismissed by the Settlement Officer of Consolidation vide order dated 30.06.2002. The Deputy Director of Consolidation, on revision being filed on behalf of Badri Prasad, dismissed the revision affirming the order passed by the Settlement Officer of Consolidation. Having been aggrieved against the orders passed by all the three consolidation courts, the petitioner has filed the instant writ petition. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was satisfied with the proposed Chak at the stage of Assistant Consolidation Officer, however, the Consolidation Officer has illegally disturbed the Chak of the petitioner on the objection filed by Ram Karan. It is further submitted that the petitioner has been allotted Chak including his original holdings, i.e., plot no. 203 and 204 adjoining the Abadi, however, Consolidation Officer has illegally displaced the petitioner from the said plots. Counsel for the petitioner has insisted that the petitioner should be allotted Chak over plot no. 203, 204 and 288 as it was proposed at the stage of Assistant Consolidation Officer. It is further submitted that due to high valuation of plots he has been allotted lessor area by the Consolidation Officer than the area what was in the possession of the petitioner. It is also submitted that the order passed by all the three consolidation courts are liable to be quashed being illegal and unwarranted under law and suffers infirmity. Having considered the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner and perusal of the record it reveals that during the Provisional Consolidation Scheme the petitioner has been proposed Chak no. 103 at two places, whereas contesting respondent Ram Karan (substituted by his heirs as respondents no. 18/1 and 18/3/2) has been proposed Chak no. 151. Being dissatisfied with his Chak, Ram Karan has field his objection claiming carvation of his Chak over plot no. 287 and 288. The Consolidation Officer has allowed the objection filed on behalf of Ram Karan, consequently, Chak of the petitioner has been modified to the extent that area of plot no. 275, 288, 289, 275, 203, 204 total measuring area 0.750 Hectare has been taken out from his Chak and in its place he has been proposed area 0.600 Hectare over plot no. 204 and 203, which are his original holdings. Having been aggrieved against the said modification, the petitioner has preferred an appeal before Settlement Officer of Consolidation, who has dismissed the appeal with an observation that prayer as made by the petitioner, if allowed, the total area of petitioner's Chak would be reduced. The Deputy Director of Consolidation, on revision being filed on behalf of the petitioner, has dismissed the same with categorical finding that the petitioner has been allotted Chak over his original holding, which is abutting Aabadi, therefore, revision is liable to be dismissed. I found no substance in the submission as advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner showing grievance with respect to the plot no. 203 and 204. C.H. Form 23 (annexure-4) reveals that both the aforesaid plots are of high valuation having exchange value of 100/- paisa. Due to the order passed by the Consolidation Officer the petitioner has been proposed Chak over plot no. 203 measuring area 0.0470 Hectare, whereas initially he was proposed measuring area 0.350 Hectare. So far as the plot no. 204 is concerned it reveals that the petitioner was proposed measuring area 0.150 Hectare and, after modification made by the Consolidation Officer, he has been proposed area 0.130 Hectare. Meaning thereby minimal area 0.020 hectare has been taken out from plot no. 204, which is quite negligible. Finding of fact returned by the Deputy Director of Consolidation that the petitioner has been proposed Chak over his original holding, which is adjacent to his Aabadi, has not appropriately been rebutted by the petitioner in the instant writ petition. So far as the plea relating to reduction in the area of original Chak of petitioner is concerned, I found no substances inasmuch as against original measuring area 0.952 Hectare, the petitioner has finally been proposed measuring area 0.802 Hectare that too on plots having high exchange value which is well within the permissible limit as enunciated under Section 19 (1) (b) of U.P. C.H. Act. 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 order passed by the Settlement Officer of Consolidation and Deputy Director of Consolidation. I found no illegality, perversity or infirmity in the orders under challenge so as to warrant indulgence of this Court in exercise of its extra ordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
Decision
Resultantly, the instant writ petition, being misconceived and devoid of merit, is dismissed with no order as to costs. Order Date :- 13.10.2022 Ashish Digitally signed by ASHISH Date: 2022.10.18 12:05:57 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad