LAWS(ALL)-2020-11-134

RAM NIHOR Vs. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF CONSOLIDATION, BASTI

Decided On November 24, 2020
Ram Nihor Appellant
V/S
DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF CONSOLIDATION, BASTI Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition is directed against an order passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Basti, dated 18.2.2020, whereby the revision filed by respondent no.2 has been allowed and the allotment of chak at the stage of Consolidation Officer has been restored. The order passed by the Settlement Officer Consolidation dated 27.12.2018 has been modified, accordingly.

(2.) Present writ petition arises out of proceedings under Section 20 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953. Petitioner and respondent no.2 are co-sharers and the dispute relates to allocation of chak over plot no.52/1. The Assistant Consolidation Officer had initially proposed chaks to both the parties over plot no.52/1, while plot no.52/2 was taken out of consolidation proceedings as the houses of the respective parties situate upon such portion of the land. There also exists a Chakmarg abutting plot no.52. An objection was filed by respondent no.2 before the Consolidation Officer stating that he has been denied chak on the land situated next to his boring, and therefore, his source of irrigation has been taken away by the allocation of chak at the level of Assistant Consolidation Officer. The appeal came to be allowed on 7.11.2013. The Consolidation Officer proposed a chak to respondent no.2 which included his boring/tubewell. An appeal against this matter came to be filed, which was allowed initially but the matter was again remitted back for a fresh consideration. Ultimately the appellate authority vide order dated 27.12.2018 allowed the appeal and restored the allotment of chak, as was proposed by the Assistant Consolidation Officer. This order has been challenged in revision by respondent no.2. In the revision it has been stated that the parties have continued in possession on the basis of allocation of chak at the level of Consolidation Officer, and that after such a long lapse of time no interference is warranted, particularly as a notification under Section 52 of the U.P.C.H. Act has been issued in between. The revisional authority has examined the records and has also inspected the spot. A specific finding has been returned after inspecting the spot that the boring of respondent no.2 exists near the plot in question, and therefore, it would be appropriate to allocate a chak to respondent no.2 abutting the area on which situates his private source of irrigation. A further finding has been returned in revision that the houses belonging to the parties have already been taken out of consolidation proceedings, and therefore, the Settlement Officer Consolidation erred in interfering with the order passed by the Consolidation Officer. Aggrieved by the order of Deputy Director of Consolidation petitioner is before this Court.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contends that the allocation of chak by the Consolidation Officer is inequitable, inasmuch as the plot of land situates close to his house which has been given to respondent no.2, while the land situated close to house of respondent no.2 has been given to present petitioner, and therefore, the dispute between the parties would continue. It is further stated that the findings returned by the Settlement Officer Consolidation that the allocation made by Consolidation Officer would deprive him of access to his house has not been reversed. Reliance is placed upon a judgment of this Court in the case of Ram Jeet Vs. D.D.C. and others, reported in 2017 (136) RD 23, to submit that allotment of chak close to the house of a tenure holder ought not to be disturbed. Another judgment of this Court in the case of Kanchan Singh Vs. Deputy Director of Consolidation and others, reported in 2017 (134) RD 752, has also been relied upon to submit that unless the findings returned by the appellate authority are reversed, the Deputy Director of Consolidation would not be justified in allowing the revision. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also placed reliance upon a judgment of this Court in the case of Budh Ram and others Vs. Asstt. Director of Consolidation, Gonda and others, reported in 2014 (124) RD 804.