Sumer and Others vs Addl. Collector (F and R) and Another

Hon''ble Amreshwar Pratap Sahi, J.—Heard Sri S.C. Varma, Learned Counsel for the petitioners assisted by Sri. Arvind Upadhyay and Sri Durga Singh for respondent No. 2.

I have heard Learned Counsel for the parties and perused the Map, which has been prepared for reference, certified copy whereof has been filed as Annexure-1A to the writ petition. A perusal thereof indicates that the dispute is confined only to the allocation of 1/4th share of respondent No. 2 over Plot No. 36. The same was proposed on the North-Western side of the said plot. While passing the order, the Deputy Director of Consolidation has finalized the said share to be allocated to the respondent No. 2 in the North-South direction on the Western side of Plot No. 36.

Sri. Varma submits that the Deputy Director of Consolidation has put the petitioner to a very disadvantaged position and on the other hand has allowed access to the portion allotted to the respondent No. 2 from three sides through Chak-roads. This, according to the petitioner, is an absolutely unjustified allocation and it also prejudices the petitioners, who have 3/4th share and who have been allocated the Eastern side of the Plot. As a result whereof the access of the petitioners to the said plot will be impeded as the respondent No. 2 would be between the Abadi and the plot allotted to the petitioners.

He further contends that the reasoning given by the Deputy Director of Consolidation is that the allocation is justified as the allotted area would be near the Abadi of respondent No. 2. The submission is that the Abadi of the petitioners and the respondent No. 2 are both situated on the same place, as such, the reason is irrational.

Sri. Durga Singh, Learned Counsel for respondent No. 2, submits that since the records are already available in the memo of Writ Petition, he does not propose to file any counter-affidavit and the matter can be disposed of at this stage itself. Accordingly, it is being disposed of finally with the consent of the parties.

The contention raised is that respondent No. 2 had been equitably adjusted looking to his lesser share in the area of Plot No. 36 and there is no impediment to the petitioners, who have been allocated a compact area on the Eastern side.

Having heard Learned Counsel for the parties, the Deputy Director of Consolidation ought to have taken a more practical view for allocating the shares separately by shifting the proposed area to respondent No. 2 from the North-Western side to the South-Western side of Plot No. 36. This would bring about a rectangle Chak of the petitioner on the Northern side extending from the East to West and a compact Chak of respondent No. 2 on the Southern side extended from the East to West. This would also bring about equitable access to their Chaks by road on two sides each.

Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 23.12.2011 as well as the Map, which is the foundation of the impugned order, is quashed. The matter is remitted back to the Deputy Director of Consolidation to make the allocation in the light of the observations made herein above and finalize the Chaks within 8 weeks from the date of production of a certified copy of this order before him.

The parties shall, accordingly, be put into possession of their respective allocations.