SIYA DEVI Vs. D.D.C. AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Sri Rajendra Kumar Pandey, for the petitioner, and Sri C.S. Agnihotri, for the contesting respondent -4. The writ petition has been filed against the orders of Settlement Officer Consolidation 14.7.2014 and Deputy Director of Consolidation dated 4.12.2014 passed in chak allotment proceeding under U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as the Act).

(2.) THE dispute between the parties is for allotment of chak on plots 37 and 86 of village Mirzapur Chandnapur, tahsil Chail, district Kausambi. Plots 31 (area 0.5638 hectare) and 86/2 (area 0.9600 hectare) were the original holdings of the petitioner and respondent -4, who are real sisters, having 1/2 share each in these plots while in plot 37 an area of 0.1048 hectare was in the share of the petitioner. Assistant Consolidation Officer proposed two chaks to the petitioner i.e. first chak of the area of 0.3801 hectare on plot 86/2 and second chak of the area of 0.4507 hectare on plots 30 and 31. The petitioner filed an objection, claiming for allotment of two chaks, first on plot 86 and second on plot 37 and deleting her chak on plots 30 and 31. It has been stated by the petitioner that she was having her private tube -well on plot 86, from where plot 37 can be irrigated but plot 31 cannot be irrigated from it as such her chak on plots 30 and 31 be deleted and its valuation be adjusted in her chak on plots 86 and second chak be allotted on plot 37. The Consolidation Officer by order dated 9.5.2014, held that as the petitioner was having her tube -well on plot 86 and in between plots 86 and 37 a chak road is existing as such looking to the private source of irrigation, it would be appropriate to allot chak to the petitioner on plots 86 and 37. On these findings the objection was allowed and the chak of the petitioner on plots 30 and 31 (total area 0.4507 hectare) was deleted and she was allotted its valuation on plots 86 and 37. Due to which and area of 0.4302 hectare was taken out from the chak of respondent -4 and her chak on plot 37 was deleted and area of her chak on plot 86 was reduced to 0.355 hectare and she was allotted its valuation on plots 30 and 31.

(3.) THE Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was having her private source of irrigation on plot 86 as such she was rightly allotted chak on plots 86 and 37 which are adjacent, according to the provisions of section 19(1)(f) of the Act by the Consolidation Officer. Respondent -4 made false statement in her appeal that her tube -well was existing on plot 86 although, the petitioner was exclusive owner of the tube -well existing on plot 86. Settlement Officer Consolidation, without making spot inspection as provided under section 21(3) of the Act, allowed the appeal and allotted three chaks to them, although total area of original holding of the petitioner was 0.8667 hectare and allotment of three chaks was against the object of consolidation. Settlement Officer Consolidation ignored the fact that she was having her private source of irrigation on plot 86 and did not record any finding in respect of ownership of tube -well. Before the Consolidation Officer, the petitioner has raised specific ground that plot 31 could not be irrigated from her tube -well on plot 86. In the light of grievance raised by the petitioner, spot inspection was necessary but neither Settlement Officer Consolidation nor Deputy Director of Consolidation made spot inspection. He relied upon the judgment of this Court in Nathnnee v. DDC and others : 2005 (98) RD 92, in which it has been held that when lower authorities had decided the claim of the parties after making spot inspection, it would be mandatory for the Revisional Court to make spot inspection while reversing the judgment. He further submits that Deputy Director of Consolidation has misread and misinterpreted the case law in Shankar @ Surendra v. DDC and others, 2003 RD 143. He submits that orders of respondents -1 and 2 are illegal and liable to be set aside.