In this writ petition, the petitioner challenged an order by the Deputy Director of Consolidation that rearranged land chaks. The court examined records and found the petitioner was not dislocated from his original holding as claimed, dismissing the writ petition for lack of merit.
The writ petition was dismissed for lack of merit.
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. - 38964 of 2001
Petitioner :- Lallu Respondent :- D.D.C., Mirzapur And Another Counsel for Petitioner :- Vivek Saran,M.L. Maurya,Vijay Bahadur Maurya Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,H.S.Mishra,S.N.Pandey,Vinod Kumar Srivastava
Hon'ble Salil Kumar Rai,J.
Heard Sri M.L. Maurya, counsel for the petitioner and Sri Hari Shanker Mishra, counsel for respondent no. 2 as well as the Standing Counsel representing respondent no. 1.
Dissatisfied with the arrangement of chaks as made by the Assistant Consolidation Officer, respondent no. 2 filed an appeal before the Settlement Officer of Consolidation which was dismissed by the Settlement Officer of Consolidation vide his order dated 11.5.1993. Against the judgment and order dated 11.5.1993 passed by the Settlement Officer of Consolidation, respondent no. 2 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, Mirzapur i.e. respondent no. 1 which was registered as Revision No. 100/127. Respondent no. 1 vide his order dated 15.10.2001 allowed the revision filed by the petitioner. The order dated 15.10.2001 passed by respondent no. 1 in Revision No. 100/127 has been challenged in the writ petition.
It has been argued by counsel for the petitioner that the arrangement of chaks as made by respondent no. 1 dislocates the petitioner from his original holding and is,
therefore, prejudicial to the petitioner and respondent no. 1 should not have interfered in the judgment of the subordinate consolidation authorities in a manner so as to dislocate the petitioner from his original holding. The argument of counsel for the petitioner is rebutted by counsel for respondent no. 2 stating that by the arrangement of chaks made by respondent no. 1 vide his order dated 15.10.2001, the petitioner has not been dislocated from his original holding and the order dated 15.10.2001 was passed by respondent no. 1 to facilitate ingress and egress of respondent no. 2 from her chak and her access to road from the other chak allotted to her and therefore, the order dated 15.10.2001 passed by respondent no. 1 is according to law and requires no interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
I have considered the rival submissions of counsel for the parties and perused the records.
The only argument that has been raised by counsel for the petitioner during the course of argument is that through the impugned order passed by respondent no. 1, the petitioner has been dislocated from his original holding. It has been stated in paragraph no. 9 of the writ petition that the chak of the petitioner adjacent to road which comprised of Plot Nos. 134, 135, 136, 139M, 140M and 141M was on his original holding and through his impugned order, respondent no. 1 has displaced the petitioner from the aforesaid chak. The contention of the petitioner is belied from the records in as much as a perusal of the impugned order dated 15.10.2001 passed by respondent no. 1 shows that the aforesaid plots are not the subject-matter of the
impugned order. Further, a perusal of CH Form-45 and CH Form-41 annexed with the counter affidavit filed by respondent no. 2 shows that the aforesaid plots were never allotted to the petitioner but were part of Chak No. 136 allotted to respondent no. 2. It is also evident from the Khatauni of 1394 to 1399 Fasli annexed as Annexure CA1 to the counter affidavit filed by respondent no. 2 that the petitioner and respondent no. 2 were co-tenure holders and Plot Nos. 132, 133 and 142 which are part of chak affected by the impugned order are not the original holdings of either parties. The contents of Annexure CA-1 have not been categorically denied by the petitioner in his rejoinder affidavit. In the aforesaid circumstances, the argument of counsel for the petitioner that the order dated 15.10.2001 passed by respondent no. 1 is bad in law and liable to be set-aside as it dislocates the petitioner from his original holding is not acceptable and is hereby rejected. No other argument was raised by counsel for the petitioner against the order dated 15.10.2001 passed by respondent no. 1.
For the aforesaid reason, the writ petition lacks merit and is hereby dismissed .
Order Date :- 18.4.2018 Satyam
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the Deputy Director of Consolidation's order dislocating the petitioner from his original holding was legally sustainable.
Whether the order in Revision No. 100/127 was passed to displace the petitioner or to facilitate ingress and egress for the respondent.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Lallu
D.D.C., Mirzapur
Settlement Officer of Consolidation, Mirzapur
Salil Kumar Rai
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
