This writ petition challenged orders regarding allotment of chaks under the UP Consolidation of Holdings Act. The court held that impugned orders conforming to Section 19 of the Act, based on reasons of maintaining chak shapes and affecting tenure holders, were valid and cogent. The petition was dismissed.
Writ petition dismissed as it lacks merits.
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.
Court No. - 11
Case :- WRIT - B No. - 3556 of 2018 Petitioner :- Balram Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 5 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Vikrant Pandey,Ram Mani Upadhyay Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Salil Kumar Rai,J.
Bharath Ram (respondent no. 6), Sahdev and Mahangilal were original co-tenure holders of plot nos. 88 and 475. Petitioner is son of respondent no. 6. Before his death, Mahangilal executed a will in favour of the petitioner. Therefore, the share of Mahangilal in the aforesaid plots devolved upon the petitioner. After the death of Sahdev, the share of Sahdev devolved upon respondent no. 5. Thus, the petitioner, respondent no. 5 and respondent no. 6 are co tenure holders of plot nos. 88 and 475. During the consolidation operation held under the Uttar Pradesh Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as 'Act 1953'), chaks were allotted in the name of Mahangilal who was Chakdar No. 296. Evidently, the aforesaid chaks devolved on the petitioner.
Aggrieved by the arrangements made by the Assistant Consolidation Officer, the petitioner filed objection before the Consolidation Officer i.e. respondent no. 4 praying that he may be allotted chak along with his father i.e. respondent no. 6 and they may be jointly allotted a chak on plot no. 475 which includes the tube well allegedly installed by respondent no. 6 and exclusively belonging to respondent no. 6.
The Consolidation Officer vide his order dated 12.07.2017, dismissed the objection filed by the petitioner on the ground that chak no. 296 allotted to Mahangilal, devolved on the petitioner and, therefore, there was no reason to alter the arrangement made by Assistant Consolidation Officer.
Against the order dated 12.07.2017 passed by Consolidation Officer, the petitioner filed an appeal
before respondent no. 3 which was registered as Appeal No. 293 and was dismissed by respondent no. 3 vide his judgment and order dated 07.10.2017. Against the order dated 07.10.2017 passed by respondent no. 3, the petitioner filed Revision No. 1579 which has been dismissed by respondent no. 2 vide his order dated 30.12.2017. The orders dated 07.10.2017 and 30.12.2017 passed by respondent nos. 2 and 3 have been passed on the ground that tube well was not shown in CH Form No. 2-A and it was not possible to alter the arrangement of chaks as made by Assistant Consolidation Officer and If the arrangement as prayed by petitioner was accepted the same may disturb the shape of other chaks and would also affect many other tenure holders. The orders dated 12.07.2017, 07.10.2017 and 30.12.2017 passed by respondents have been challenged in the present writ petition.
It has been contended by the counsel for the petitioner that while passing the impugned orders, the respondent nos. 2 to 4 have not considered the entries made in CH Form No. 5 which showed that there was a source of irrigation on plot no. 475 and the same exclusively belonged to the father of the petitioner and therefore, the impugned orders are vitiated due to non consideration of relevant materials.
I have considered the submission of counsel for the petitioner and also perused the record.
The recitals in the impugned orders passed by respondents that petitioner has been allotted chak on his original holdings on plot nos. 88 and 475 and that the existence of tube well is not reflected in CH Form No. 2-A has not been denied by the petitioner in his writ petition. It has been recorded in the impugned orders that accepting the demand of the petitioner would disturb the shape of the chaks and would also affect many other tenure holders and, therefore, it was not possible to alter the arrangement made by Assistant Consolidation Officer as, the alleged tube well was situated in the middle of plot no. 475.
From a perusal of the facts and reasons given by
respondent nos. 2 to 4 in their impugned orders, it is evident that the impugned orders are in conformity with the principles enumerated in Section 19 of the Act, 1953.
The respondent nos. 2 to 4 have given valid and cogent reasons for rejecting the prayer of the petitioner. Hence, I do not find any merit in the writ petition.
The writ petition lacks merits and is accordingly dismissed.
Order Date :- 24.4.2018 sailesh
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the consolidation officers erred in rejecting the petitioner's objection to allotment of chak due to existence of tube well.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Balram
State Of U.P.
Bharath Ram
Sahdev
Mahangilal
Consolidation Officer
Salil Kumar Rai
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
