Virendra Singh vs Dy. Director of Consolidation and Others

Ram Surat Ram (Maurya), J.—Heard Sri Sanjeev Kumar Pandey, Counsel for the petitioner and Sri Shiv Ram Singh holding brief of Sri Kuldeep Singh Yadav, Counsel for the contesting respondents. The writ petition has been filed against the order of the Deputy Director of Consolidation dated 26.10.2013 passed in chak allotment proceeding.

The dispute relates to between the parties for allotment of chak on plot No. 40. Admittedly, the petitioner and the contesting respondents are co-sharers in it. It is also admitted that plot No. 40 situate on the side of the link road which connects the National Highway. The Assistant Consolidation Officer proposed chak to the petitioner giving entire frontage on link road in his chak. The six co-sharers filed separate objections against the proposed chak by the Assistant Consolidation Officer u/s 20 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 claiming allotment of chak giving frontage on the link road in their chaks. The objections were consolidated and decided by the Consolidation Officer who by order dated 19.9.2012 held that chak on the frontage on the road was in view of previous family settlement as in previous family settlement he was given possession on the side of the road he was in possession of it. Feeling aggrieved by the order of the Consolidation Officer five co-sharers filed appeals. All the appeals were consolidated and decided by the Settlement Officer Consolidation by order dated 31.12.2011 dismissing the appeals of the co-sharers. Thereafter four co-sharers filed separate revisions. The revisions were consolidated by the Deputy Director of Consolidation who by order dated 26.10.2013 found that as all the persons are cosharers in plot No. 40 as such they are all entitled for allotment of chak giving frontage on the link road. However, by order of the Consolidation Officer and the Settlement Officer, Consolidation the entire frontage has been allotted in the chak of the petitioner. On this finding the revisions were allowed and the cosharers were allotted chaks giving frontage on the link road in plot No. 40. Thus, chak of the petitioner remained on the same plot only the direction of the chak has been changed and the frontage has been revised.

The Counsel for the petitioner submits that the Consolidation Officer and the Settlement Officer, Consolidation accepted that in view of the previous family settlement the parties divided their share on different places of plot No. 40. He submits that the Consolidation Officer and the Settlement Officer, Consolidation made a spot inspection in which the possession of the petitioner by side of the link road was found on plot No. 40. However, this concurrent finding of fact has been disturbed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation without considering the fact relating to previous family settlement. He submits that none of the cosharers have denied the previous family settlement, accordingly, they were not entitled to claim frontage on the link road as in the previous settlement they agreed and was not given land on the frontage on the link road. Accordingly, the Deputy Director of Consolidation has exceeded his jurisdiction in setting aside the orders of the Consolidation Officer and the Settlement Officer, Consolidation.

I have considered the arguments of the Counsel for the petitioner and examined the record.

It is admitted that the petitioner and the contesting respondents are cosharers in the plot No. 40 and this plot situate on the side of the link road in such circumstances being the cosharers in plot No. 40 all the cosharers are entitled to their chak on the frontage of the road. So far as the family settlement is concerned and previous possession is concerned the family settlement is relevant for deciding the title but on its basis it cannot be said that in chak allotment proceeding possession cannot be disturbed. If the tenure holder is disturbed from possession in chak allotment proceeding from the original holding then there will be no reason to say that possession on the basis of previous settlement cannot be disturbed. Since the Consolidation is a final settlement, accordingly, every co-shares is entitled to claim frontage on the road side which is the land of commercial value. In view of the aforesaid discussion since the Deputy Director of Consolidation has allotted the frontage of the plot to all the cosharers no interference is required by this Court. The writ petition is dismissed.