Kushum Devi vs Deputy Director of Consolidation, Chitrakoot and Others

A.P. Sahi, J.—The petitioner Kushum Devi is Chak Holder No. 319. Her late husband Dinesh Prasad was also recorded as one of the cotenure holders of the Khata in question. In order to appreciate the controversy, suffice it to say, that the dispute relates to allotment of chaks under Section 21 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953. A dispute between all the shareholders to the extent of the shares is already pending before the Consolidation Officer.

Chaks were proposed by the Assistant Consolidation Officer and the Consolidation Officer after proceeding to examine the objections that were filed in this regard came to the conclusion that there were about 25 plots scattered all over which were consolidated and the allotment was given at 9 places appropriately keeping in view the valuation of the land that was earlier possessed by the petitioner and the other cotenureholders.

The Consolidation Officer while deciding the objection of the petitioner has recorded the following findings in the order dated 30.10.2002:

Aggrieved, the petitioner contended that the largest holding is over plot no. 612 and therefore that should be retained and that she has been given Udan Chak over plot No. 262 and 438 which should be abolished and she should be restored over her original holdings over plot nos. 1006, 1062, 650 and 651.

The appeal was partly allowed vide order dated 18.11.2003 in favour of the petitioner restoring the claim of the petitioner over plot No. 612. The appellate authority while disposing of the appeal recorded the following findings:

The appellate court held that the petitioner was entitled to be restored over her ''Singwa quality land'' by adjusting the valuation.

Dissatisfied, the petitioner preferred a revision and another revision was preferred by one Ram Naresh against the aforesaid modification made by the appellate authority. Both the revisions were decided. The revision filed by the petitioner was rejected holding that almost all the chaks have been allotted over original holdings and on account of nondistribution of shares amongst the cosharers of the same Khata, and demarcation thereof, has resulted in the joint allotment which if dismembered would in turn disturb a large number of other tenureholders. The revision filed by Ram Naresh was allowed with allotment over plot no. 612. The Deputy Director of Consolidation held that both Ram Naresh and the petitioner have been equitably adjusted and that Ram Naresh had been given a Udan Chak over plot no. 272 which was unjustified. The said findings have been recorded in the impugned order dated 24.3.2011 in revision no. 106 of 200304.

Learned counsel for the petitioner Sri Pal contended that the petitioner''s restoration over plot no. 612 by the SOC has been wrongly upturned and that the respondent no. 4 is a small tenureholder who does not deserve the relocation as claimed by him.

From a perusal of the decision in the revision of Ram Naresh, it is evident that no objections were filed in the said revision. Apart from this, the petitioner and another cotenure holder had only filed objections whereas the majority of the cosharers had not filed any objection to the allotment proceedings as recorded by the Consolidation Officer in his order dated 30.10.2002.

Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that low quality of land has been allotted to the petitioner as against the high valuation of land of ''Singwa quality'' and therefore, the minor adjustment which was made by the SOC ought not to have been disturbed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation.

Refuting the aforesaid submissions, the argument on behalf of the respondents led by Sri Rajesh Ji Verma and Sri Aniruddh Chaturvedi is to the effect that the petitioner is yet to get her share defined and she will be allotted her land accordingly as observed by the authorities when the share is allotted.

So far as the overall allotment is concerned, the same has been done in accordance with valuation, and if the petitioner''s claim of restoration of entire area over plot no. 612 is accepted then the other small tenureholders like Ram Naresh and others would be deprived of good quality of land. It is for this reason that the Deputy Director of Consolidation clearly recorded that the respondent Ram Naresh had been wrongly given a Udan Chak over plot No. 272. Apart from this, the Settlement Officer Consolidation also, except for the minor adjustment, held that if any further adjustment is attempted the same would disturb a large number of other allotments. The claim of the petitioner of allotment over plot no. 612 is only to the extent of her share which does not bring about any significant change in the allotment made. Even if the petitioner is affected then it shall be only to the extent of her minor share which can be sorted out at the time of bifurcation of shares before the Consolidation Officer that is stated to be pending adjudication.

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the records, the finding recorded by the Consolidation Officer as referred to hereinabove in detail indicates, that as far as possible the original holdings have been retained and the plots which were scattered at 25 places, have been consolidated at 9 places. Thus, consolidation has taken place and the petitioner is a cosharer along with others whose shares are yet to be determined in a dispute before the Consolidation Officer. The petitioner can obviously claim her share according to low quality of land allotted in the proceedings which are pending before the Consolidation Officer, for which the consolidation of the area should not be held up on the demand raised by the petitioner. Apart from this, there is no manifest injustice or error on record which may require any interference in the allotment proceedings at this stage when the parties are yet to get their shares defined in the objections which are pending before the Consolidation Officer.

Accordingly, there is no merit in the petition and is hereby dismissed.

(Petition dismissed)