Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

MATA CHARAN versus D.D.C.

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Mata Charan v. D.D.C. - WRIT - B No. 5740 of 1987 [2006] RD-AH 17634 (12 October 2006)

 

This is an UNCERTIFIED copy for information/reference. For authentic copy please refer to certified copy only. In case of any mistake, please bring it to the notice of Joint Registrar(Copying).

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ALLAHABAD

Court No. 5

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 5740 of 1987

Mata Charan          ............................... Petitioner

Versus

Deputy Director of Consolidation, Mirzapur

and others ......... ......... .......... Respondents

---------

Hon'ble Janardan Sahai, J

This writ petition relates to allotment of chaks. At the stage of Assistant Consolidation Officer two chaks were proposed for allotment to the petitioner one on plot no. 2152 etc and the other on plot nos. 2041 and 2042 etc.  The petitioner did not file any objection. Objections under Section 20 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act were filed by respondent nos. 2 and 3. The objections were allowed and the petitioner's chak was disturbed. However the Consolidation Officer also reduced the valuation of some of the plots of respondent nos. 2 and 3. The petitioner however did not file any appeal against the order of the Consolidation Officer. Several appeals were filed against the order of the Consolidation Officer. One appeal was also filed by respondent nos. 2 and 3. The Settlement Officer, Consolidation affected the chak of the petitioner and increased the number of his chaks from two to three and the area of his first chak on plot no. 2152 was reduced.  Several revisions were filed before the Deputy Director of Consolidation. The petitioner did not file revision against the order of the Settlement Officer, Consolidation. Two revisions were also filed by respondent nos. 2 and 3. The Deputy Director Consolidation allowed the revisions of respondent nos. 2 and 3. He increased the valuation of plot nos. 2341 and 2348 of respondent nos. 2 and 3 and consequently he found it necessary to compensate respondent nos. 2 and 3. In the process the chak of the petitioner has again been disturbed and some of the area on plot no. 2152 of the petitioner has been taken out and the petitioner has been allotted other plots.  

The grievance of the petitioner is that plot no. 2152 is his original holding and is near his abadi and the area of his chak on that plot has been reduced at different stages and even though the petitioner may not have preferred any appeal or revision the Deputy Director of Consolidation was not justified in making further reduction in the area on his plot no. 2152. The other grievance of the petitioner is that number of the chaks of the petitioner has been increased from three to four by the Deputy Director of Consolidation and even the area of the original holding of the petitioner has been reduced by more than 25 per cent by the Settlement Officer, Consolidation and Consolidation Officer. Counsel for the petitioner submits that these changes ought not to have been made by the Deputy Director of Consolidation in view of the fact that the petitioner had already been affected to this disadvantage by the orders passed by the Consolidation Officer and Settlement Officer Consolidation.  Counsel for the respondents Sri Sankatha Rai submits that the petitioner neither filed objections under Section 20 of the Act nor filed any appeal before the Settlement Officer Consolidation or revision before the Deputy Director of Consolidation and consequently it was not open to him to challenge any modification that may have been made in his chak upto the stage of the Settlement Officer, Consolidation and that the area of the petitioner had already been reduced at the stage of Consolidation Officer and Settlement Officer, Consolidation .

If the Deputy Director of Consolidation had not made any modification in the petitioner's chak there may have been some force in the respondent's contention that the petitioner's grievance against the order of the Settlement Officer, Consolidation could not be considered in a writ petition against the Deputy director of Consolidation's order. But that is not so. The Deputy Director of Consolidation has modified the chak. While considering the case of the petitioner the Deputy Director of Consolidation has stated that the petitioner does not have any original number at the place. C.H. Form 23 filed by the petitioner indicates that plot no. 2152 was his original number and this is not disputed by the respondents counsel. The Deputy Director of Consolidation has affected plot no. 2152 the original number of the petitioner. The petitioner therefore is justified in making a grievance about this modification. According to the petitioner plot no. 2152 is near his abadi.  Although there is a recital in the order of the Deputy Director of Consolidation to which counsel for respondent referred that spot inspection had been made by him but that recital appears from the context to have been made in respect of the revision of another tenure holder. It is also not clear from the order of the Deputy Director of Consolidation whether the observation made by him that the petitioner does not have any original holding at the place is in reference to the abadi of the petitioner.  In the circumstances it was necessary for the Deputy Director of Consolidation to consider the likely loss to the petitioner by the modification made by him, which the Deputy Director of Consolidation has not done. The Deputy Director of Consolidation is also required to consider whether plot no. 2152 is near the abadi of the petitioner. The order of the Deputy Director of Consolidation therefore cannot be sustained.  The writ petition is allowed. The order of the Deputy Director of consolidation dated 12.3.1987 is set aside. The Deputy Director of Consolation shall consider the grievance of the petitioner regarding plot no.2152 and shall make a spot inspection. It will be open to the parties to raise all the contentions that may be available to them under the law. The Deputy Director of Consolidation shall decide the revision afresh in accordance with law if possible within a period of six months from the date a certified copy of this order is filed before him by either of the parties.

 

Dt. 12.10.2006

Sn


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.