Girja Shankar vs P.D.C., Jaunpur and Others

Ram Surat Ram (Maurya), J.—Heard Sri S.C. Verma, Counsel for the petitioner and Sri S.C. Tripathi and Sri Ajay Singh, Counsel for the respondents. The writ petition has been filed against the orders of Deputy Director of Consolidation dated 8.7.2013, Settlement Officer, Consolidation dated 14.10.2011 and Consolidation Officer dated 18.7.2011, passed in chak allotment proceedings, under U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as the Act).

The petitioner and Mofat Lal (respondent-12) are real brothers and have 1/4 share, Santosh (respondent-4) has 1/4 share, Banwari (respondent-5) has 1/4 share and Bachai, Shiv Samujh, Shiv Kumar, Vivek Kumar and Smt. Muniraji, (respondents-6 to 10) together have 1/4 share, in the joint family properties. In title proceeding, the parties entered into a written compromise on 30.12.2012. They had their houses on different portion on plot No. 387, according to their previous family settlement. Looking to their houses at different portion on plot No. 387, it was agreed between them, in this compromise, that plot No. 387/2 (0.030 hectare) 387/4 (area 0.011 hectare) be exclusively recorded in the name of Santosh Kumar (respondent-4), plot No. 387/4 (area 0.041 hectare) be exclusively recorded in the name of Banwari (respondent-5), plot No. 387/4 (area 0.041 hectare) be exclusively recorded in the names of Bachai, Shiv Samujh, Shiv Kumar, Vivek Kumar and Smt. Muniraji, (respondents-6 to 10) and plot No. 387/5 (area 0.010 hectare) be exclusively recorded in the names of Girja Shankar (the petitioner) and Mofat Lal (respondent-12).

After the compromise, in the title proceeding, the petitioner and respondent-12 (hereinafter referred to as the petitioner) filed an objection (registered as Case No. 215 of 2011-12) u/s 20 of the Act for partition and allotment of separate chak to them. In this objection, the petitioner demanded three chaks, i.e. first chak on plot No. 408, second chak on plot No. 247 and third chak on plot 387/4, taking area of plots 366 and 394. It has been stated by the petitioner in his objection that his abadi as well as pumping set was lying on plot No. 387/5. Santosh (respondent-4) filed an objection (registered as Case No. 218 of 2011-12), Banwari Lal (respondent-5) filed an objection (registered as Case No. 216 of 2011-12) and Bachai and others (respondents-6 to 10) filed an objection (registered as Case No. 217 of 2011-12) for partition of their chaks. All the objections were consolidated and decided by Consolidation Officer (respondent-3), who by order dated 18.7.2011 allotted one chak to the petitioner on plot No. 408 of an area of 0.316 hectare, second chak on plot Nos. 247 and 248 of an area of 0.133 hectare and third chak on plot 387/4 of an area of 0.150 hectare.

The petitioner filed an appeal (registered as Appeal No. 373), Banwari Lal (respondent-5) filed an appeal (registered as Appeal No. 377) and Muniraj and others (respondents-6 to 10) filed an appeal (registered as Appeal No. 378) from the aforesaid order. In the memorandum of appeal, the petitioner has stated that in the eastern portion of plot No. 387, he had planted some trees as such his chak be allotted in north-south, in eastern portion, in stead of east-west, so that his trees be included in his chak and area of his chak on plot Nos. 247 and 248 be reduced and its valuation be included in his chak on plot 387. All the appeals were consolidated and heard by Settlement Officer Consolidation (respondent-2), who by order dated 14.10.2011 held that on spot inspection it was found that all the co-sharers were allotted chaks in front of their abadi on plot No. 387 as such neither the location of the chak of the petitioner can be changed nor its area on this plot can be increased. On these findings, the appeals were dismissed.

The petitioner filed a revision (registered as Revision No. 3140 /2011-12) and Banwari (respondent-5) filed a revision (registered as Revision No. 3179/2011-12) from the aforesaid orders. Both the revisions were consolidated and heard by Deputy Director of Consolidation (respondent-1), who by order dated 18.7.2013, held that on spot inspection it was found that co-sharers were allotted chaks in front of their houses which were constructed by them according to their previous family settlement on plot No. 387 as such, no interference is required in the orders of Consolidation Officer as well as Settlement Officer Consolidation. On these findings both the revisions were dismissed. Hence this writ petition has been filed.

The Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the house and pumping set of the petitioner were situated on plot No. 387/5, which is in northern side. Under the family settlement amongst the co-sharers, eastern portion of this plot was given to the petitioner and under a mutual agreement, the petitioner was also cultivating share of Muniraj and others in plot No. 387 and in lieu of it Muniraj and others were cultivating, his share in plot No. 366. In the eastern portion of plot No. 387, the petitioner had planted trees. The petitioner was allotted a chak in northern portion in east-west in plot No. 387, as such his trees in the eastern portion had gone in the chak of other co-sharers, without giving its valuation to him. He further submitted that the petitioner made a demand that his chak on plot No. 387 was less in area than his share in this plot, as such, he demanded that his chak on plot No. 248 be abolished and its valuations be adjusted in plot No. 387. The petitioner was having his house and pumping set as such he was entitled to be allotted a compact large area at this place. But neither the Settlement Officer, Consolidation nor the Deputy Director of Consolidation have considered the grievances of the petitioner. He further submits that in the appeal, 14.10.2011 was the date fixed for spot inspection and after spot inspection the Settlement Officer Consolidation fixed 21.10.2011 for hearing of the oral arguments, however, without hearing the arguments he decided the appeals by order dated 14.10.2011. The Settlement Officer, Consolidation has dismissed the appeal without hearing the oral arguments of the petitioner. He submits that the orders of Settlement Officer Consolidation and Deputy Director of Consolidation do not give any reason for not accepting the demand of the petitioner and is result of non-application of mind.

I have considered the arguments of the Counsels for the parties and examined the records. A copy of the compromise entered into between the petitioner and his co-sharers in title proceeding has been filed as Annexure-1 to the writ petition. A perusal of the compromise shows that plot No. 387/4 (area 0.041 hectare) was given exclusively to Banwari (respondent-5), an area of 0.041 hectare of plot No. 387/4 was exclusively given to Bachai and others (respondents-6 to 10), an area of 0.030 hectare of plot No. 387/2 was exclusively given to Santosh Kumar (respondent-4) and an area of 0.010 hectare of plot No. 387/5 was exclusively given to the petitioner and his brother (respondent-12). Thus inequality in area between the co-sharers in this plot was due to this compromise. All the co-sharers have their houses/abadi over different portions of plot No. 387 and due to their houses, they were given different area of this plots exclusively in the compromise. The objections of the petitioner and the respondents under section-20 of the Act was not filed within time of the notification u/s 20 of the Act. These objections were filed long after finalization of the chak as such adjustment between co-sharers alone were open for consideration to the consolidation authorities. As such in partition of the chak, area covering the frontage of their houses of different co-sharers were allotted to them.

All the co-sharers were allotted chak in east-west. The petitioner has his house and pumping-set in northern side and such he was allotted northern portion adjacent to his house and pumping set. Similarly the other co-sharers were also allotted chaks in front of their houses in east-west. The demand of the petitioner that his chak be carved out in north-south in the eastern side was not found suitable on spot inspection as it will take frontage of other co-sharers as such this demand of the petitioner was accepted.

The next question argued by the Counsel for the petitioner that he was not given full area of his share in plot No. 387, which has been accepted by the consolidation authorities. The chaks were carved out on plot No. 387 looking to the previous compromise between the parties dated 30.12.2010 as such the frontage of the abadi of all the co-sharers were allotted to them due to which an area of 0.029 hectare has become deficient in this plot to the petitioner from his share, which has been allotted to them on plot Nos. 247 and 248. The Consolidation Officer, Settlement Officer Consolidation and Deputy Director of Consolidation, all have made spot inspection and found that the chaks were allotted to the parties in front of their houses/abadi on plot No. 387. It was not found possible to increase the area of the petitioner on plot No. 387, which may result in allotment of frontage of others house in the chak of the petitioner. In chak allotment proceeding it is not always possible to allot chak equal to the original area. The chaks were substantially allotted to the co-sharers in front of their houses. As such, on this ground no interference is required by this Court.

The other point argued by the Counsel for the petitioner that the trees of the petitioner were as standing on the eastern side which were planted by him. The petitioner has not given number of trees, their age and estimated valuation of these trees as such it cannot be said that by not allotting the trees, any material prejudice has been caused to the petitioner. A ground has been raised in this respect in the appeal but it was not raised in revision. In case, the trees were negligible and have been allotted to other co-sharers, then on this very ground the chak allotment proceedings cannot be disturbed.

So far as arguments of the Counsel for the petitioner that Settlement Officer, Consolidation fixed 14.10.2011 for spot inspection and after spot inspection, he fixed 21.10.2011 for hearing of the appeal, however, without hearing the arguments, he decided the appeals on 14.10.2011, is concerned, the Settlement Officer Consolidation has considered the grievances of the petitioner. In any case the petitioner was fully heard by Deputy Director of Consolidation. Although the orders of the consolidation authorities are not happily worded but the grievances of the petitioner has been fully considered as such on this ground alone no interference is required. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the consolidation authorities have adjusted equities between the parties and no material prejudice has been caused to the petitioner so as warrant interference by this Court. The writ petition has no merit and is dismissed.