Bhuwai Lal and Others vs Dy. Director of Consolidation, Allahabad and Others

Hon''ble Amreshwar Pratap Sahi, J.—Heard Sri. Babu Ram Yadav Learned Counsel for the respondent No. 4 and perused the affidavit filed in support of substitution application.

In view of the submission raised the cause shown for delay is sufficient.

The delay is condoned.

The substitution application is also allowed.

The heirs of respondent No. 4 have already put in appearance through Sri. Babu Ram Yadav who has filed his Vakalatnama on their behalf as such let necessary correction be carried out accordingly.

Learned counsel for the respondent submits that a notice in writing was tendered to Sri. Madhusudan Dixit, Learned Counsel for the petitioner who has refused to receive the same.

Having perused the records and having heard Sri. Babu Ram Yadav Learned Counsel for the respondent nos. 2 to 6, the dispute in the present petition appears to be allotment of land stated to be situate besides the road.

The contention of Sri. Babu Ram Yadav is that roadside land has to be allotted to the tenure holders and as a matter of fact should have been kept out of consolidation operations. The Deputy Director of Consolidation by the impugned order has accepted this contention of the respondents and has passed an order for keeping out the entire area out of consolidation operations.

The contention on behalf of the petitioners appears to be that such an action could have been undertaken at the stage of objections against the statements of principles u/s 9 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 and that the Deputy Director of Consolidation while deciding a revision in relation to chak allotment could not have proceeded to pass such an order. A ground has also been taken that no such plea was raised and even otherwise the Deputy Director of Consolidation has overlooked the statutory bar u/s 11-A of the U.P. C.H. Act, 1953.

Having heard Learned Counsel, it is evident that the impugned order proceeds to keep the entire area out of consolidation operations after the chaks had almost been finalized after valuation of the plots in question.The valuation had not been contested under the provisions of Section 9. In the opinion of the Court, this was not the stage while hearing a revision of pure chak allotment to proceed to pass such an order. If the land in dispute was roadside land then the Deputy Director of Consolidation ought to have allocated roadside land according to the original holdings of the tenure holders as per their respective shares. As a matter of fact this has been the consistent view of this Court that roadside land should be retained with the original tenure holder as far as possible.

Accordingly, the impugned order having proceeded on an erroneous position of law is unsustainable, as such, the impugned order dated 23.10.2006 is hereby quashed. The matter is remitted back to the Deputy Director of Consolidation to conduct a spot inspection and to pass a fresh order of allotment in accordance with the observations made hereinabove as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of three months from the date of presentation of a certified copy of this order before him.

The writ petition is allowed.