Dismissed

Mohd. Shafiq v. D.D.C.

Allahabad HC18 Apr 2018WRIB/3035/1992

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition challenging an order rearranging land chaks under the Uttar Pradesh Consolidation of Holdings Act, the High Court upheld the Deputy Director of Consolidation's order. The court held that the new arrangement complied with the principles of rectangulation and did not prejudice the petitioner's right to use his existing irrigation source.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was dismissed for lack of merit, upholding the order dated 20.1.1992 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation.

Mohd. Shafiq Vs D.D.C. — Land Acquisition | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 11

¶2

Case :- WRIT - B No. - 3035 of 1992

¶3

Petitioner :- Mohd. Shafiq Respondent :- D.D.C. Counsel for Petitioner :- M.R. Gupta Counsel for Respondent :- S. Mahmood,K.S. Rathore,S. Moahmood,S.C.

¶4

Hon'ble Salil Kumar Rai,J.

¶5

Heard counsel for the petitioner as well as counsel for the respondents.

¶6

Dissatisfied with the arrangements of chak made by the Assistant Consolidation Officer, the contesting respondent nos. 2 to 4 filed objections before the Consolidation Officer which was dismissed by the Consolidation Officer vide order dated 28.10.1987. Against the order dated 28.10.1987, respondents filed an appeal before the Settlement Officer of Consolidation which was also dismissed vide order dated 28.10.1988. Against the order dated 28.10.1988 passed by the Settlement Officer of Consolidation, the contesting respondent nos. 2 to 4 filed a revision under Section 48 of the Uttar Pradesh Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as, 'Act, 1953') before the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Ghazipur i.e. respondent no. 1 which was numbered as Revision No. 577/914/177. The aforesaid revision was allowed by respondent no. 1 vide judgment and order dated 20.1.1992. The order dated 20.1.1992 passed by respondent no. 1 has been challenged in the present writ petition.

¶7

It transpires from the record that Plot No. 455 was the original holding of contesting respondent nos. 2 to 4 and

¶8

they had their private source of irrigation on the said plot. Plot No. 468 was the original holding of the petitioner. The petitioner had his private source of irrigation on Plot No. 453/1. The arrangements of chak as proposed by the Assistant Consolidation Officer was in a manner that even though contesting respondent nos. 2 to 4 were given the largest chak on Plot No. 455 but an area approximately 0- 4-2 from Plot No. 455 was reduced and added to the chak of the petitioner so that his private source of irrigation existing on Plot No. 453/1, which was chucked out of the consolidation proceedings, could also be used for irrigation of Plot No. 468 through the newly added area in the chak of the petitioner. The aforesaid chak of the petitioner was formed by consolidating areas from Plot Nos. 455 and 456. The effect of the said arrangements made by the Assistant Consolidation Officer was that the formation of chak violated the principle of the rectangulation as provided in Section 19(1)(g) of the Act, 1953 and also deprived respondent nos. 2 to 4 of the advantage of having their private source of irrigation on Plot No. 455. The Deputy Director of Consolidation i.e. respondent no. 1 vide his impugned order dated 20.1.1992 has re-arranged the chaks whereby the contesting respondents have been given a chak which includes the total original area of Plot No. 455 and follows the principle of rectangulation as provided in Section 19 of the Act, 1953. Through the order dated 20.1.1992, respondent no. 1 has allotted chak to the petitioner on his original holdings.

¶9

It has been contended by counsel for the petitioner that the

¶10

arrangement of chaks as made by respondent no. 1 deprives the petitioner the advantage of being able to cultivate his chak through his tube-well which was installed on Plot No. 453/1 and which was chucked out from the consolidation proceedings. It has been stated in paragraph no. 9 of the counter affidavit that Plot No. 453/1 and the chak allotted to the petitioner on Plot Nos. 468 and 469 are connected with a chak road and Nali and therefore the source of irrigation of the petitioner available on 453/1 can be used for irrigation of his chak allotted on Plot No. 468. The aforesaid facts stated by the contesting respondents in their counter affidavit have not been denied by the petitioner in his rejoinder affidavit. Thus, it is evident that the re-arrangement of chaks as made by respondent no. 1 does not prejudice the petitioner. The impugned order dated 20.1.1992 passed by respondent no. 1 is in accordance with Section 19 of the Act, 1953 as the re-arrangement done by respondent no. 1 was to implement the principle of rectangulation as prescribed in the aforesaid provision. I find no illegality or perversity in the impugned order dated 20.1.1992 passed by respondent no. 1 so as to exercise the extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

¶11

For the aforesaid reason, the writ petition lacks merit and is hereby dismissed .

¶12

Order Date :- 18.4.2018 Satyam

Mohd. Shafiq v. D.D.C.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohd. Shafiq v. D.D.C.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri Virendra Kumar Sharma and Another Vs Board of Revenue U.P. Lucknow and Another

Vijai Bahadur Singh Vs Board of Revenue

Abdul Salam and 2 Others Vs Dy. Director of Consolidation Muzaffarnagar and Others

Mool Chand and Others Vs D.D.C. and Others

Lallu Vs D.D.C. Mirzapur and Another

Vaibhav Kumar Singh Vs Vimal Kumar Dubey