This court dismissed a writ petition challenging appellate and revisional orders under the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Reserved
Court No. - 9
Case :- WRIT - B No. - 1387 of 2001
Petitioner :- Gunai Respondent :- D.D.C., Ghazipur And Others Counsel for Petitioner :- R.D.Singh,A.K.Singh,Raj Kumar Dhama Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Anuj Kumar
Hon'ble Anjani Kumar Mishra,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. None has appeared for the respondents.
The writ petition arises out of an objection under Section 20 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act and is directed against the revisional order dated 12.12.2000 and the appellate orders dated 17.01.2000 and 02.05.2000.
The order dated 02.05.2000 is stated to have been passed on a recall application filed by the petitioner for recall of the order dated 17.01.2000 on the ground that it is ex parte.
In the petition, it has been stated that the order dated 02.05.2000 is transcribed on the application for recall, itself. However, the copy of the recall application filed on record does not contain the alleged order dated 02.05.2000. In the absence of the order dated 02.05.2000 on record of the writ petition challenge to this order is unsustainable.
The petitioner is holder of chak no. 12. Aggrieved by the chak proposed at the ACO stage, he is alleged to have filed an objection under Section 20 which was allowed on 19.12.1993.
Against this order, a time barred revision was filed by one Badri son of Chamru alleging himself to be Member of the Consolidation Committee.
The delay in filing the appeal was condoned and the appeal was allowed.
As noticed above, the petitioner is alleged to have filed a restoration application stating that the appellate order was ex parte. It has also been stated that this recall application was rejected,
although copy of the order as recorded above, is not available on record.
The petitioner thereafter preferred a revision, which has been allowed, however the petitioner being dissatisfied as filed this writ petition.
From the record, it transpires that the petitioner had been proposed a chak over plot no. 76 and by the order passed by the Consolidation Officer in lieu of this plot no. 76, he was allotted plot no. 188. This order was set aside in appeal restoring the position as it existed at the ACO stage. The Deputy Director of Consolidation has however, allowed the revision, although it appears by allotting a different area of plot no. 76 to the petitioner.
The contention of counsel for the petitioner is that plot no. 76, which has been allotted to the petitioner at the revisional stage had been allotted also to one Sukhu, who has filed the writ petition, which is still pending consideration before this Court. The contention therefore, is that the two petitions are liable to be heard together.
By the order passed by the Consolidation Officer, the petitioner, in lieu of plot no. 76 proposed in his chak, had been allotted land of plot no. 188, which was valued at 10 and 30 paise.
The Courts below have recorded categorical findings that the land allotted in the chak of the petitioner by the order of the Consolidation Officer was land reserved for pasture land and, therefore, this land could not have been proposed in the chak of the petitioner.
The Settlement Officer Consolidation has also observed that plot no. 76 proposed in the chak of the petitioner was valued at 80 paise and the area of plot no. 188 allotted to him on his objection, was land valued at 10 paise and 30 paise. As a consequence, the increase in area of the petitioner's chak was more than the statutory 25 per cent because in lieu of 7 biswa land he had been allotted a bigha of land.
The appellate and revisional orders are perfectly
justified, also because nothing could be pointed out by counsel for the petitioner to even prima facie show the reasoning given is, in any way, vitiated.
The only contention raised before this Court is that plot no. 76 had also been allotted to one Sukhu who had challenged the order by means of a writ petition, which is still pending consideration. Although it is sought to be conveyed that since plot no. 76 has already been allotted to Sukhu, there was no land left which could have been allotted to the petitioner by the Deputy Director of Consolidation, this submission is not liable to be accepted because neither the petitioner has mentioned original area of plot no. 76, nor the area of this plot, allotted in the chak of Sukhu. Therefore, the submission that is being raised is a bald allegation not established by any material on record. Since the allegation made is not substantiated, in any manner, the same cannot be accepted.
Under the circumstances, the orders impugned are found to be perfectly justified and in accordance with law.
The writ petition is wholly devoid of merit and is accordingly dismissed.
Order Date :- 12.07.2018 Mayank
3 issues framed by the court
Whether an objection under Section 20 to land consolidation is legally sustainable against the order of restoration to the appellant.
Whether the writ petition is maintainable in view of the absence of the recall order on the record.
Whether the impugned orders vitiated the petitioner's rights regarding land allotment and chak proposals.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Gunai
D.D.C., Ghazipur
Others
Anjani Kumar Mishra
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
