Nazar Mohammad and Others vs Deputy Director of Consolidation and Others

Ram Surat Ram (Maurya), J.—Heard Sri C.K. Rai for the petitioners and Sri M.C. Singh for the respondents. The writ petition has been filed against the order of Deputy Director of Consolidation dated 28.10.2009 passed in chak allotment proceedings under U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as the Act).

Plot Nos. 103 and 372/1 were the original holding of the petitioners, in which they had 1/3 share. Assistant Consolidation Officer proposed two chaks to the petitioners i.e. first chak was proposed on plot No. 372 etc of an area of 0.029 hectare and second chak was proposed to him on plot No. 103 of an area of 0.085 hectare. The petitioners filed an objection claiming a single chak on plot No. 372. The Consolidation Officer, by order dated 16.12.2008, dismissed the objection of the petitioners. The petitioners filed an appeal (registered as Appeal No. 609) from the order of Consolidation Officer. Settlement Officer, Consolidation heard the appeal and by order dated 30.3.2009 allowed the appeal of the petitioners and allotted a single chak to them on plot No. 372 taking area of plot No. 371 etc which were allotted in chaks of Raghuraj, respondent-4. Due to order of Settlement to Officer, Consolidation, Raghuraj, respondent-4 was allotted a third chak on plot No. 412/3.

Raghuraj, therefore, filed a revision (registered as Revision No. 1147/346) from the aforesaid order. The revision was heard by Deputy Director of Consolidation, who by order dated 28.10.2009 held that by the order of Settlement Officer, Consolidation, Raghuraj, respondent-4 was allotted three chaks and his third chak on plot No. 412/3 was an uran chak. He further found that plot No. 370 was the original holding of Raghuraj-respondent-4, therefore, he was allotted a chak of plot No. 370 taking an area of plot No. 371 which was adjacent to plot No. 370. As such, the chak of Raghuraj on plot No. 370 was on his original holding and has been illegally disturbed by Settlement Officer, Consolidation without considering his grievances. It has been further found that plot No. 103 was the original holding of the petitioners and it has been rightly proposed in their chak. Therefore, the allotment of plot No. 103 in the chak of the petitioners was not illegal. On these findings, the revision of respondent-4 has been allowed due to which the position of the petitioners of the stage of Assistant Consolidation Officer has been restored. Hence this writ petition has been filed.

The Counsel for the petitioners submitted that plot No. 103 was an unirrigated land and the petitioners are the small tenure holders having total area of 0.119 hectares of their original holding, accordingly, their demand for allotment of single chak was genuine. The Settlement Officer, Consolidation rightly allotted a single chak to the petitioners. He submits that object of the consolidation is to allot a compact area instead of scattered plots, accordingly, if some area of plot No. 371 which was lying in the vicinity of plot No. 372, which was the original holding of the petitioners, was allotted to them. There was no illegality in the order of Settlement Officer, Consolidation. He further submits that respondent-4 had larger original holding than the petitioners and in such circumstances, allotment of three chaks to respondent-4 was not causing any material prejudice to them. As such, no interference was required in the revision. He further submitted that after the order of Settlement Officer, Consolidation dated 30.3.2009, the petitioners have invested huge amount and levelled the plot in dispute. Accordingly, they are entitled to the chak of the stage of Settlement Officer, Consolidation on this ground also.

I have considered the arguments of the parties and examined the records. The Deputy Director of Consolidation found that the grievances of respondent-4 have not been considered while allowing the appeal of the petitioners. He further found that by the order of Settlement Officer, Consolidation, respondent-4 was allotted an uran chak on plot No. 412/3, making three chaks to him. These findings recorded by Deputy Director of Consolidation have not been challenged by the petitioners. Plot No. 372/1 was the original holding of the petitioners and in which they have 1/3 share, thus an area of 0.029 hectare comes in their share and in lieu of it they were allotted a chak on this plot of an area of 0.028 hectares, remaining area has been allotted to their co-sharers. In such circumstances, the enhancement of the area of the chak of the petitioners at this place will cause prejudice to their other co-sharers as well as the adjacent chak holders who were allotted chaks of their original holdings.

So far as the contention of the Counsel for the petitioners that plot No. 103 is an unirrigated land, as such, allotment of the chak to the petitioners on this plot will cause prejudice to them, is concerned, as this plot is the original holding of the petitioners, as such, they cannot raise this ground.

The next argument raised by the Counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners have invested huge amount in levelling the plots as allotted to them by Settlement Officer, Consolidation, is concerned, as continuous dispute was pending accordingly, there is no justification for the petitioners to invest the amount for levelling the plot. They have invested the amount on their own risk and they cannot claim any right on its basis. The chaks to the various tenure holders are allotted on their original holdings by the order of respondent-1, in case, this order is set aside then inconvenience will cause to the various tenure holders. The chak of the petitioners is also on their original holdings, as such, no illegality has been committed by respondent-1. In view of the aforesaid discussion, no interference is required by this Court. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed.