Dismissed

Bharath Ram v. State of U.P. and 5 Others

Allahabad HC24 Apr 2018WRIB/3559/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition, the petitioner challenged orders dismissing his objection to the allotment of land chaks under the UP Consolidation of Holdings Act. The court dismissed the petition, holding that the authorities correctly applied Section 19 of the Act due to the location of the tube well in the middle of the plot.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was dismissed for lack of merit as the impugned orders were in conformity with the principles of Section 19 of the Act.

Bharath Ram Vs State of U.P. and 5 Others — Land Acquisition | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 11

¶2

Case :- WRIT - B No. - 3559 of 2018 Petitioner :- Bharath Ram Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 5 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Vikrant Pandey,Ram Mani Upadhyay Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶3

Hon'ble Salil Kumar Rai,J.

¶4

Bharath Ram (petitioner), Sahdev and Mahangilal were original co-tenure holders of plot nos. 88 and 475. Before his death, Mahangilal executed a will in favour of respondent no. 6 who is the son of petitioner. After the death of Sahdev, the share of Sahdev devolved upon respondent no. 5. During the consolidation operation held under the Uttar Pradesh Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as 'Act 1953'), the petitioner was allotted two chaks by the Assistant Consolidation Officer which were carved out from his original holdings on plot nos. 88 and 475.

¶5

Aggrieved by the arrangement made by the Assistant Consolidation Officer, the petitioner filed objection before the Consolidation Officer i.e. respondent no. 4 praying that his chak on plot no. 475 may be recarved and he may be allotted chak on plot no. 475 including his source of irrigation alleging that the tube well on plot no. 475 was installed by him and belonged exclusively to him.

¶6

The Consolidation Officer vide his order dated 12.07.2017, dismissed the objection filed by the petitioner on the ground that the tube well was not recorded in CH Form No. 2-A and the petitioner had been allotted chaks on his original holdings and, therefore, there was no reason to alter the arrangement made by concerned Assistant Consolidation Officer.

¶7

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. 296 and the same was dismissed by respondent no. 3 vide his judgment and order dated 07.10.2017. Against the order dated

¶8

07.10.2017 passed by respondent no. 3, the petitioner filed Revision No. 1580 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.

¶9

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 petitioner and therefore, the impugned orders are vitiated due to non consideration of relevant materials.

¶10

I have considered the submission of counsel for the petitioner and also perused the record.

¶11

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.

¶12

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.

¶13

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.

¶14

The writ petition lacks merits and is accordingly dismissed.

¶15

Order Date :- 24.4.2018 sailesh

Bharath Ram v. State of U.P. and 5 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bharath Ram v. State of U.P. and 5 Others

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

Mohd. Shafiq Vs D.D.C.

Lallu Vs D.D.C. Mirzapur and Another

Vaibhav Kumar Singh Vs Vimal Kumar Dubey

Radhey Shyam Dubey Vs D.D.C. and Others

Balram Vs State of U.P. and 5 Others

Satish Kuamr Singh and Others Vs Board of Revenue U.P. at Allahabad and Others