Ramadhar Yadav vs Dy. Director of Consolidation and Others

Ram Surat Ram (Maurya), J.—Heard Sri Vijay Pratap for the petitioner. The writ petition has been filed against the order of Deputy Director of Consolidation dated 6.9.2013 rejecting the restoration application of the petitioner and order dated 28.2.2001 dismissing the revision of the petitioner, order of Settlement Officer (Consolidation) dated 29.5.1998 dismissing the appeal of the petitioner and order of Consolidation Officer dated 30.4.1997 dismissing the objection of the petitioner in chak allotment proceedings.

During consolidation, the petitioner was allotted two chaks, the first chak was allotted on plot Nos. 91, 167 and 169, etc. and the second chak of the petitioner was allotted on plot No. 491. The petitioner filed an objection that he has his private source of irrigation on plot No. 91, as such, the second chak of the petitioner be deleted and its valuation be adjusted in his first chak on plot Nos. 91, 167 and 169, etc. The objection of the petitioner was heard by C.O. who by order dated 30.4.1997, found that the second chak of the petitioner was on his original holding, while the petitioner was given valuation according to his original valuation in his first chak on plot No. 91. In such circumstances, the valuation of second chak of the petitioner cannot be allotted in his chak. On these findings, the objection of the petitioner has been dismissed.

The petitioner filed time-barred appeals from the order of C.O., which have been heard by Assistant Settlement Officer (Consolidation), who by order dated 29.5.1998, dismissed the appeals of the petitioner. Thereafter, the petitioner filed a revision (registered as Revision No. 10/10/105/355/357) from the aforesaid order, which has been dismissed by DDC by order dated 28.2.2001. The petitioner thereafter filed an application for recall of the order, which has been rejected by order dated 6.9.2013.

The Counsel for the petitioner submits that it is alleged that the arguments in the revision were heard on 21.12.2000, however, the President of District Bar Association has issued a certificate that there was a resolution for walk-out of the Court of Sri R.D. Bharti, Chief Revenue Officer, from 20.12.2000, which continued throughout the month of December, 2000. Accordingly, the order passed by Sri R.D. Bharti on the basis of arguments dated 21.12.2000 is illegal and no argument was advanced by his Counsel before him due to resolution of the District Bar Association. A xerox copy of the order-sheet has been attached on page 60 of the writ petition, which shows that the order-sheet dated 21.12.2000 on which the arguments were heard, was signed by the Counsel appearing for the parties. There is no denial that the signature contained in the order-sheet dated 21.12.2000, was not the signature of the Counsel for the petitioner. In such circumstances, the recall application was not maintainable.

All the consolidation authorities have found that both the chaks of the petitioner were on his original holding, as such, it is not possible to delete his second chak on plot No. 491 and allot its valuation in his first chak on plot No. 91. The petitioner has not been able to challenge this finding.

The Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was having private source of irrigation on plot No. 91, as such, he was entitled to a chak of compact area on plot No. 91 itself. However, the consolidation authorities have illegally rejected the claim of the petitioner in this respect. The consolidation authorities found that the various tenure holders were given chaks in the southern side of the railway line on their original holdings, as such, the area of the chak of the petitioner on plot No. 91 was not possible to be enhanced. In such circumstances, the second chak of the petitioner was not deleted which is also on his original holding, as such, there is no illegality in the order of the consolidation authorities. There is no merit in the writ petition. It is dismissed.