High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Case Law Search
Ranvir Singh v. J.D.C. And Ors. - WRIT - B No. 20924 of 1992  RD-AH 19302 (15 November 2006)
Civil Misc.Writ Petition No.20924 of 1992
Ranvir Singh Vs. Joint Director of Consolidation. Meerut & Others
Hon. Janardan Sahai,J
This writ petition arises out of proceedings in chak allotment. The parties are tenureholders of village Gangnoli. The respondent no.2 Brahm Singh filed objection under Section 20 of t he U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act. The objections were allowed and certain plots of Ranvir Singh petitioner were given in the chak of Brahm Singh. The petitioner as well as Brahm Singh filed separate appeals before the Settlement Officer, Consolidation. The Settlement Officer, Consolidation partly allowed the appeal of Ranvir Singh but dismissed that of Brahm Singh. Against the order of the Settlement Officer, Consolidation, Ranvir Singh the petitioner filed a restoration application. Respondent no.2 Brahm Singh on the other hand filed a revision before the Dy.Director of Consolidation against the order dismissing his appeal. The restoration application of Ranvir Singh was allowed but the revision filed by the respondent Brahm Singh was dismissed by the Joint Director of Consolidation. Thereafter Brahm Singh filed an application to recall the order of the Dy, Director of Consolidation, which was dismissed by the Dy. Directror of Consolidation. The order passed by the Dy.Director of Consolidation dismissing the revision of Brahm Singh was not challenged in writ petition. In consequence of the petitioner's restoration application having been allowed the Settlement Officer Consolidation heard the appeal of the petitioner and allowed it by an order dated 14.12.88. That order was challenged by Brahm Singh in revision. The Joint Director of Consolidation by the impugned order has allowed the revision of Brahm Singh. Two findings have been recorded by the Joint Director of Consolidations, firstly that the changes made by the Settlement Officer, Consolidation have resulted in the reduction of the original holding of Brahm Singh by about 11 percent and secondly that the ''Nali' proposed by the consolidation authorities is situated at a higher level than the plot of respondent no.2 Brahm Singh on which there is a tube well and therefore the water from the ''nali' will waterlog the chak of the respondent no.2.
I have heard Sri N.C.Rajvanshi learned Sr.Counsel assisted by Sri P.N.Misra counsel for the petitioner and Sri G.N.Verma learned Sr.Counsel assisted by Sri H.M.B.Sinha counsel for respondent no.2.
A preliminary objection was raised by Sri G.N.Verma as to the maintainability of the writ petition. He submits that certain plots which have been allotted to respondent no.2 are plots which were original plots of certain other tenureholders, who have not been impleaded in the writ petition and consequently the writ petition cannot be heard as their chaks may be affected. In my opinion this contention does not have any force. The Sansodhan Talika annexed with the order of the Joint Director of Consolidation indicates that whatever changes have been made by him in the revision are changes either in the chak of the petitioner or in the chak of the respondent no.2. Consequently the tenureholders to whom these plots may have originally belonged would have no grievance as they have not themselves filed any writ petition and it would not matter to them whether these plots are allotted in the chak of the petitioner or that of the respondent no.2. At this stage the tenureholders to whom the plots may have originally belonged would not be affected. If the case is remanded and the Dy.Director of Consolidation or other authority in consequence of the case being remanded to him wants to disturb any other tenureholder he would have to issue notice to him
It was submitted by Sri N.C.Rajvanshi counsel for the petitioner that demand of the respondent no.2 could not have been considered by the Joint Director of Consolidation as these demands had been turned down by the Dy. Director of Consolidation in his earlier order dated 15.6.89 dismissing the revision against the Settlement Officer, Consolidation's order dated 10.4.86 who in turn had dismissed his appeal. The respondent no.2 it is
submitted could agitate before the Dy.Director of Consolidation only against the changes in his chak made by the order of the Settlement Officer, Consolidation in consequence of the appeal of the petitioner having been allowed and in that context the demand of the respondent which had been refused in the revision cannot be considered. What in fact is being pleaded is res judicata. While the general principles of res judicata apply to consolidation proceedings and a finding given by the competent civil or revenue court is binding upon the consolidation courts but it is well settled that the Code of Civil Procedure is not applicable to consolidation proceedings and technical rules of the Code of Civil Procedure do not apply more so in chak allotment. A chak is a package of one or several plots and a demand for allotment of a particular plot or grievance may be considered and turned down at one stage in the context of the then composition of the plots in the chak of the parties. But if that composition of plots is meanwhile changed by a subsequent order the demand for the plot or grievance may again have to be considered in the changed composition of the plots in the chak The contention therefore that the Joint Director of Consolidation could not have considered the demand of the respondent no.2 is therefore also turned down.
On merits it was submitted by Sri N.C.Rajvanshi that the two reasons referred to above given by the Joint Director of Consolidation for setting aside the order of the Settlement Officer, Consolidation are not sound. It was submitted that the finding of the Joint Director of Consolidation that the ''nali' proposed by the consolidation authorities, is situated at a level higher than the plot of respondent no.2 is without any basis and without any spot inspection. The averment to this effect has been made in para 17(b) of the writ petition. In para 20 of counter affidavit filed by respondent no.2, what has been stated in reply is that no spot inspection was asked for. It is not denied that no spot inspection was made. As to whether a particular plot is situated at a level higher than the plot of a party can only be ascertained after spot inspection is made. That having not been made the reason given by the Joint Director of Consolidation regarding the level of the ''Nali' and the plot is purely conjectural.
The other reason which has been given by the Joint Director of Consolidation is that the original holding of the respondent no.2 has been affected by about 11 percent. It is submitted by Sri N.C.Rajvanshi that this too is not a sufficient ground inasmuch as changes upto 25 percent in the area of the original holding are permissible under Section 19 of the Act. It is true that there is no illegality if the Consolidation Officer and Settlement Officer, Consolidation in making the allotment affect the area of the original holding of a tenurholder by less than 25 percent but if the principles of Section 19 can be followed in that allotment without significantly affecting the area of the original holding it cannot be denied that that would be a better exercise. It is also submitted that the Joint Director of Consolidation has not considered the case of the petitioner at all and the effect of the modifications made by the Joint Director of Consolidation is that the chak of the petitioner has become multi cornered and is not a rectangular plot, which the consolidation authorities should try to carve in view of the principles of Section 19. It is also submitted that the rule that the tenureholders shall be allotted chaks at the place where they have the largest part of their original holding has also not been followed. It is true that the Joint Director of Consolidation has not considered the loss that the petitioner may be put to. The order of the Joint Director of Consolidation therefore deserves to be set aside and the matte be sent back. Counsel for the parties agree that the matter may be sent back to the Consolidation Officer. In the circumstances the writ petition is allowed. The order of the Consolidation Officer, dated 16.11.89 , the order of the Settlement Officer, Consolidation dated 14.12.88 and that of the order of the Joint Director of Consolidation dated 18.5.92 are set aside. The Consolidation Officer shall decide the matter afresh. Parties' counsel agree that till the case is finally decided by the Consolidation Officer, the parties may be directed to maintain status quo. In view of the statement made by the parties' counsel and the facts and circumstances, the parties are directed to maintain status quo till the decision of the case by the Consolidation Officer.
Wp 20924 of 92
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.