LALMAN Vs. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF CONSOLIDATION GORAKHPUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is directed against the order dated 30th April 1986 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation accepting the reference under section 48 (3) of the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953, (for short the Act). A Reference was proposed by the subordinate authorities and the same was approved by the impugned order with slight modification.

(2.) THE order dated 22-6-84 passed by the Consolidation Officer became final. Its effect was to be given amongst the parties in terms of adjustment in valuation of the plots. First point urged on behalf of the petitioner is that the Reference cannot be made at the instance of the contesting respondents no. 4 and 5 as they had not filed any objection under section 20 (2) of the Act. But this argument did not impress. It is not necessary that an objection under section 20 (2) may be filed first and only thereafter Reference can be made. It depends on the facts of each case. Reference can be made even when no objection under section 20 (2) has been filed. Section 48 (3) is couched in a very comprehensive language. THEre are no limitations provided under section 48 (3) so as to indicate that only after conclusion of proceedings under section 9 (Nine) or 20 (Twenty), the Reference proceedings can be initiated It can, accordingly be initiated at the behest of a person who has not filed objection under section 20. Reference may be initiated to provide some valuation of land to any tenure holder who has been given lesser valuation by an oversight, or to give effect to any order of the consolidation authority which could not be given effect to so far. A reference may also be sought to make provision for better Chak road, or for widening the Chak road etc. THE Deputy Director of Consolidation has stated in the first part of his order as to what was the necessity to make the Reference. He has stated that a -valuation of 3.40 anna was to be provided to the petitioner, and similarly Jagannath was to get a valuation of 70 Paisa, Suryabali, respondent no. 4 was also to get some valuation which could not be given to them. To meet all these contingencies in view of finality of order dated 20-6-84 the Reference proceedings were initiated.

(3.) THE third point of his argument was that the direction of the area of 32 decimal land in plot no. 62 purchased by the petitioner was not given to the petitioner, rather it was changed from the direction indicated in the sale deed (Annexure-1). In the sale deed it has been indicated that the petitioner purchased a new land of 32 decimal out of plot no. 62 to the eastern side from north to south but after making spot inspection the Deputy Director of Consolidation realised that there may be made a silght change in the direction of the area given to the petitioner. On the spot inspection he came to the conclusion that respondent Jagannath has got his house in the north of the 'bundh'. THE door of this house was to the east. THE petitioner appears to have his house to the north of the house of Jagannath, whereas Suryabali, respondent no. 4 has got his house to the east. By the impugned order an adjustment has been made in such a way so that all the tenure holders including the petitioner and respondent no. 4 and 5 might get some area close to their houses. This is how the adjustment in the Chak and the area has been approved by the impugned order with slight modifications. By this arrangement the petitioner has been given an area of 32 decimal purchased by him close to his house and respondent nos. 4 and 5 have also got some area near their houses. This might lead to some notional grievance but from the perusal of the impugned order it is evident that the substantial justice has been done. In view of these facts, I am of the view that the petition has got no substance.