Surendra Nath Shukla vs D.D.C., Basti and Others

Hon''ble Amreshwar Pratap Sahi, J.—Heard Sri S.N. Tripathi learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri G.D. Misra for the respondent nos. 2 and 3. The respondents No. 4 to 15 have already been served yet they have not put in appearance and are not contesting the matter. Affidavits have been exchanged between the parties and therefore the prayer made is to dispose of the writ petition finally. The dispute arises out of allotment proceedings.

Sri S.N. Tripathi submits that the original holding of the petitioner is Plot No. 228, 74, 81 and 9, out of these plots the petitioner''s plot no. 9 is said to be submerged under water, the area whereof is 593 ares as against this area the petitioner''s sons have been allotted 609 ares which area is more than the original holding over the said plot.

The petitioner was not aggrieved by this excess allotment over plot no. 9 and the chaks were maintained between him and his sons over his original holding upto the stage of Settlement Officer Consolidation in accordance with the area so allocated. At the revisional stage the same has been altered at the instance of the respondent nos. 2 and 3 and the compromise entered by them with the respondent nos. 4 to 11. The revision did not implead the sons of the petitioner.

Sri Tripathi submits that apart from other original holdings, the respondent nos. 2 and 3 over Plot No. 235 had an area of 906 ares. The respondent nos. 2 and 3 have been respectively allotted 786 and 750 which is more than double the area of their original holding over the said plot.

Plot No. 6 of the respondent nos. 2 and 3 is also a plot submerged under water where they had 780 ares and they had been allotted their original holding over the said plot.

The Deputy Director of Consolidation while altering the allocations on the basis of the alleged compromise between the respondent nos. 2 and 3 and the respondents no. 4 to 11 has now increased the area of the quality of submerged water land of the petitioner by allotting him over plot no. 6 which is the original holding of the respondent and not the petitioner. Sri Tripathi, therefore, contends that the petitioner''s holding has been adversely affected by allocations of more low quality land submerged under water than which had been over his original plot no. 9. He therefore, prays that this has caused substantial injury to the petitioner and has prejudiced the allotment which was impermissible in law and was even otherwise inequitable. He further submits that if he has made adjustment with his sons over Plot No. 9, that does not mean that he should be saddled with additional low quality land over Plot No. 6.

Sri G.D. Misra for the respondent nos. 2 and 3 submits that the compromise was with the respondent no. 4 to 11 and the said respondents had offered that they will be benefited by allotment over plot no. 6 over a larger area and as such in view of the said compromise the impugned order has been passed.

The submission of Sri Misra further is that the adjustment of the petitioner was made in the adjustment chart at the level of the Consolidation Officer and so far as the adjustment of the contesting respondents is concerned this is entirely based on the compromise with which the petitioner had no concern.

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the records, it is evident that the area of submerged water of the petitioner has been considerably increased much more than what was his original holding plot no. 9 by adding the area of plot no. 6. Plot no. 6 is the original holding of the respondent nos. 2 and 3. In such a situation, it is obvious that the petitioner has been prejudiced by reduction of his fair quality of land to his detriment and against his original holdings.

If the compromise was entered into between respondent nos. 2 and 3 and the respondent nos. 4 to 11 and they were prepared to exchange their original holdings then the Deputy Director of Consolidation had no occasion to allocate the original holding of the respondent nos. 2 and 3 to the petitioner over plot no. 6. This was therefore a manifest error. At the best the adjustment could have been made between the respondent nos. 2 and 3 and the respondents 4 to 11. Accordingly, the Deputy Director of Consolidation has incorrectly exercised his discretion and has acted in excess of jurisdiction to alter the chak of the petitioner. The impugned order dated 4.1.2006 is therefore unsustainable. It is hereby quashed. It shall be open to the respondents no. 2 and 3 to apply before the Deputy Director of Consolidation again for making the adjustment on the basis of the alleged compromise between respondents no. 4 to 11 and the respondent nos. 2 and 3, and in case the said request is made before the Deputy Director of Consolidation through an application the Deputy Director of Consolidation shall reconsider the matter in the light of the said request of the respondent nos. 2 and 3 without affecting the petitioner. The writ petition is allowed subject to the direction hereinabove.