Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

FATEH CHAND CHATURVEDI versus D.D.C. & OTHERS

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Fateh Chand Chaturvedi v. D.D.C. & Others - WRIT - B No. 3656 of 1981 [2006] RD-AH 19881 (23 November 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

A.F.R.

Judgment Reserved on 25.8.2006

Judgment Delivered on 23.11.2006

(Reserved)

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 3656 of 1981

Fateh Chand Chaturvedi and another Versus Joint Director of Consolidation and others.

Hon'ble S.U.Khan J

This writ petition arises out of consolidation proceedings. Matter relates to allotment of Chak. Hanuman Prasad respondent No.2 was allotted Chak No. 1269. The judgment of Joint Director of Consolidation (JDC) Allahabad dated 8.1.1981, which has been challenged through this writ petition was passed in two revisions being revision No. 538 and 560. First revision was filed by Hanuman Prasad and the other by Uma Shanker against Hanuman Prasad. Uma Shanker is not party in this writ petition. Uma Shanker was allotted Chak No. 122. The plot, which is mainly in dispute is plot No. 2359.

The grievance of Hanuman Prasad was that he had been given excess valuation (land) in the plots which were near the river (nadihar) and he had been given less valuation (land) in ordinary land (bangar) even though prior to start of consolidation 2/3 of his land was of ordinary quality i.e. Bangar.

In respect of Hanuman Prasad JDC held that before start of consolidation the valuation of his land in nadihar was 42.8 aana and of banger 46.92 aana and SOC had given him about 7 aana valuation land in excess in nadihar JDC further held that Munshi Lal, father of petitioner whose Chak number was 666 had land of valuation of 33.20 aana in nadihar prior to start of consolidation while he and his other co-sharers were allotted 20.17 aana valuation land in nadihar. JDC opined that Munshi Lal should be given land in nadihar in the same ratio as he had prior to start of consolidation. Accordingly, JDC cancelled the Chak of Munshi Lal over plot No. 1528 and adjusted the said portion towards western side of plot No. 1269 to north-south. Munshi Lal had contended that his co sharers had been given land in nadihar. JDC also observed the argument of counsel for respondent No.2 Hanuman Prasad that plot No. 2453 and 2454 were of banger quality of land and not of nadihar as held by SOC.

The procedure for determining the valuation of Chaks under Consolidation of Holdings Act, rules and notifications cannot be said to be scientific. Formula for determining valuation is given under section 8(1) (ii)(a) 8-A(2)(d) and (3) Rules 3(5), 20-A and 24 of the Rules framed under the Act and paras 126 to 154 of Consolidation Manual. Determination of valuation directly affects the area to be allotted to a chak holder. Moreover for allotment of chak a precise formula has been given under section 19 of U.P.C.H Act. The two important ingredients are 19(1)(b) which is to the effect that the valuation of plots allotted to tenure holder subject to deductions, if any, made on account of contributions to public purposes under this Act, is equal to valuation of plots originally held by him provided that except with the permission of Director of Consolidation, the area of the holding or holdings allotted to a tenure holder shall not differ from the area of his original holding or holdings by more than twenty five percent of the latter; the other important ingredient is provided under section 19(1)(e) which is to the effect that every tenure holder is, as far as possible, allotted a compact area at the place where he holds the largest part of his holding provided that no tenure holder may be allotted more ''Chaks' than three, except with the approval in writing of the DDC. The next ingredient is provided und section 19(1)(f) which is to the effect that, every tenure holder is, as far as possible, allotted the plot on which exists his private source of irregation, or any other improvement, together with an area in the vicinity equal to the valuation of the plot originally held by him there;

Due to wide discretion in respect of carvation of chaks given to the consolidation authorities, drastic changes may be made by all the three authorities, CO, SOC and DDC. This gives rise to lot of confusion, heart burning, adventurism and allegations of all sorts. In such situation the best course is to make all possible efforts within the framework of section 19 to leave original holdings with the tenure holders or their maximum part. This will avoid all the above negative aspects of consolidation. It must also be born in mind that villagers particularly those who have got small pieces of agricultural land inherited from their ancestors have got a sort of attachment with their lands, which may not be ascertained in terms of valuation. This feeling of attachment will also be satisfied if maximum effort is made to leave with the tenure holder his original holding/ holdings.

The quality of land is already taken care of while determining the valuation. Further exercise to allot same portion of lesser quality of land or higher quality of land to a tenure holder as he had prior to consolidation is not warranted under any of the provisions of Consolidation of Holdings Act. It was precisely on this consideration that JDC reversed the judgment of SOC. Moreover, even though JDC may have very wide power while hearing revision under section 48 of U.P.C.H Act but still while reversing the judgment of court/ authority below against which appeal or revision is filed some fault has to be pointed out therein. Even court of first appeal which is authorized even to reverse the finding of fact recorded by the courts below can not reverse the judgment appealed against unless it finds and points out some fault therein.

Accordingly the court has no option except to set-aside the judgment of JDC and remand the matter to him.

Writ petition is therefore allowed. Impugned judgment passed by the J.D.C is set-aside. J.D.C is directed to decide the revision again after hearing the parties concerned keeping in view the observations made in the body of this judgment.

Both the parties are directed to appear before the JDC along with certified copy of this judgment on 22.12.2006. The revision shall be decided within three months from the date on which certified copy of this judgment is filed before the JDC. Until decision of the revision status quo as on date shall be maintained by the parties.

Waqar

23.11.2006


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.