Bansh Bahadur Singh and Others vs Dy. Director of Consolidation and Others

Ram Surat Ram (Maurya), J.—Heard Sri Deepak Kumar Jaiswal for the petitioners. The writ petition has been filed against the order of Deputy Director of Consolidation (DDC) dated 12.2.2013, passed in chak carvation proceedings, under U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as the Act).

Plot Nos. 88, 320 and 339 were the original holdings of the petitioners. The petitioners were proposed three chaks, i.e. the first chak was proposed on plot No. 88 etc. of an area of 0.360 hectare, the second chak was proposed on plot No. 339 etc. of an area of 0.505 hectare and the third chak was proposed on plot No. 320 of the area of 0.475 hectare. The petitioners filed an objection against his proposed chak, claiming for allotment of more area on his third chak on plot No. 320. The objection of the petitioner was dismissed by the Consolidation Officer, by order dated 5.5.2012. The petitioners filed an appeal (registered as Appeal No. 360) from the aforesaid order. The Settlement Officer Consolidation, by order dated 30.10.2012, partly allowed the appeal of the petitioners and increased his area on plot No. 320, i.e. in the third chak, taking valuation from his first chak of plot No. 88.

Against the aforesaid order, Brij Nath and others (Chak Holder No. 214), filed a revision (registered as Revision No. 342), in which, they had stated that due to order of Settlement Officer Consolidation, the shape of the chaks have become irregular, accordingly, the shape of the chak be made in rectangular shape. The Deputy Director of Consolidation, after examining the record, found that the contention raised before him, was correct. He, accordingly, while making the chaks of the parties in rectangular shape, again took an area of 0.195 hectare from the chak of the petitioners on plot No. 88, etc. and allotted it on plot No. 320 by the order dated 12.2.2013. Hence, this writ petition has been filed.

The Counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners had not filed any revision, however, their chak on plot No. 88 has been illegally disturbed. He submits that the chak of the petitioners on plot No. 88 was on their original holding, therefore, the chak at this place was not liable to be disturbed. He further submits that due to order of Deputy Director of Consolidation, the area of the petitioner has further been reduced by 0.064 hectare and thus, the total reduction in the area has become 0.123 hectare. The petitioners, being a small tenure holders, grave injustice has been caused to them due to reduction of the area. He further submits that the petitioners have filed an objection for reducing the valuation of plot No. 88/1, which is still pending. In such circumstances, the order of Deputy Director of Consolidation is liable to be set aside.

I have considered the arguments of Counsel for the petitioners and examined the record. So far as the arguments of the petitioners in respect of reduction in area is concerned, a perusal of CH Form 23 shows that total valuation of the original holdings of the petitioners was determined 117.12 anna, after a general deduction for public purposes valuation of 111.26 anna has been allotted to them. Thus, there is about 5% general deduction in the valuation. In area, there is total reduction of 0.123 hectare, which comes to about 10%. Thus, after taking into account the reduction of the valuation, the reduction of area comes to about 5% only, although u/s 19(1) Proviso of the Act, the reduction upto the extent of 25% in allotment of chak is permissible. Thus, the reduction in area is within the permissible limit.

The Deputy Director of Consolidation found that due to the order of Settlement Officer Consolidation, the chaks of the parties have become in irregular shapes. This finding has not been challenged by the petitioners. The object of the consolidation is to allot, as far as possible, the chaks in rectangular shapes, therefore, the Deputy Director of Consolidation has not committed any illegality in allotting the chaks in rectangular shape.

So far as the contention of the petitioners about their objection for reduction of valuation of plot No. 88, being pending is concerned, at present the petitioners have been allotted very small area on plot No. 88/1. Earlier valuation of plot No. 88 was determined at the rate of 60 paisa. In case, its valuation is reduced then total valuation of the original holdings of the petitioners will be reduced. At present only an area of 0.008 hectare of plot No. 88/1, is in the chak of the petitioners. Therefore by determining its higher valuation, the benefit of valuation goes to the petitioners. In case, the valuation is reduced, then the area of the petitioners will further be reduced. However, on this ground, chak carvation proceedings cannot be withheld. By the impugned order a compact area has been allotted to the petitioners on plot No. 320, which was their largest original holdings. As such allotment of the chak to the petitioners is in consonance of the principles as provided u/s 19 of the Act. No interference is required by this Court. The writ petition has no merit and is dismissed.