The High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging an order that corrected a discrepancy in a revenue map by altering plot boundaries. The court held there was no illegality in the order correcting the map during consolidation proceedings.
Petition dismissed with the finding that the revenue map correction order was legal and valid.
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. - 7919 of 1993
Petitioner :- Chhote Lal Respondent :- D.D.C. And Other Counsel for Petitioner :- N.D. Kesari,Karunesh Narayan Tripathi,Shri Kant,Suresh Chandra Varma Counsel for Respondent :- S.C.,Avinish Kr. Srivastava,K.N. Pandey,Lal Pratap Singh,Ramesh Shukla,Vivek Tripathi
Hon'ble Salil Kumar Rai,J.
Case has been called out in the revised list.
Heard Sri Suresh Chandra Varma, counsel for the petitioner and Standing Counsel representing respondent no. 1.
No one appeared on behalf of respondents to oppose the present writ petition.
It transpires from the record that the petitioner is Chakdar No. 102 and respondent no. 2 is Chakdar No. 425. During the padtal held under Uttar Pradesh Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as, 'Act, 1953'), 2150 sq. meters of Plot No. 241 were shown as abadi and 8025 sq. meters of Plot No. 241 were shown as under cultivation. Consequently, in Form-2A issued under the Act, 1953, Plot No. 241 was divided as Plot No. 241/1 and Plot No. 241/2. A perusal of Form-2A issued under the Act, 1953 also shows that Plot No. 241/1 was under cultivation and the total area of the said plot was 8025 sq. meters while Plot No. 241/2 was abadi and the total area of the said plot was 2150 sq. meters. Form 2-A has been annexed as Annexure No. CA-1 to the counter affidavit. It has also been stated in paragraph no. 3 of the counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondent nos. 2, 3, 4 and 5 that in Case Nos. 10085 and 10088, the Consolidation
Officer, Kaurihar vide his order dated 8.2.1989 declared Plot No. 241/2 as chak out. Though the said fact has been denied by the petitioner in paragraph no. 4 of the rejoinder affidavit, however, the objections of the petitioner filed under Section 9-A(2) of the Act, 1953 shows that in the aforesaid objections, the petitioner had admitted that 19 bissa of Plot No. 241/2 was declared as chak out. It is pertinent to state here that 19 bissa is equal to approximately 2150 sq. meters. The said objections of the petitioner have been annexed as Annexure No. CA-2 to the counter affidavit. Subsequently, during the proceedings relating to allotment of chak, the petitioner was allotted Chak No. 102 which consisted of Plot No. 244/2, 245 and some part of Plot No. 241/1. Subsequently, it transpired that there was some discrepancy in the consolidation map and the area of Plot No. 241/2 in the aforesaid map was reflected as 1297 sq. meters while area of Plot No. 241/1 was reflected as 8878 sq. meters, even though according to the records, the area of Plot No. 241/2 was supposed to be 2150 sq. meters and the area of Plot No. 241/1 was supposed to be 8025 sq. meters. On an application filed by respondent no. 3, a reference under Section 48(3) of the Act, 1953 was made before respondent no. 1 who after making a spot inspection of the plots on 18.2.1993, passed an order dated 20.2.1993 rectifying the aforesaid discrepancy by altering the boundaries of Plot No. 240/1 and 243. The order dated 20.2.1993 passed by respondent no. 1 has been challenged in the present writ petition.
The contention of the petitioner is that the order dated 20.2.1993 passed by respondent no. 1 reduces the total
area of Plot No. 241/1 and the area allotted to him during the consolidation proceedings. It has also been contended by the petitioner in the writ petition and argued by his counsel that as the total area in Plot No. 241/1 which was under cultivation was 8878 sq. meters, therefore, the same could not have been declared as chak out by the consolidation authorities and respondent no. 1 had erred in law in altering the consolidation map by reducing the area of Plot No. 241/1 to 8025 sq. meters.
I have considered the matter and the argument of counsel for the petitioner.
It is evident that the area of Plot No. 241/2 which was declared as chak out was 2150 sq. meters and the area of Plot No. 241/1 which was under cultivation was merely 8025 sq. meters and, therefore, subject to consolidation proceedings. The petitioner and other tenure holders allotted chaks on Plot No. 241/1 could not be cumulatively allotted more than 8025 sq. meters. Thus, the argument of counsel for the petitioner that vide order dated 20.2.1993, the total area allotted to the petitioner on Plot No. 241/1 has been reduced is not acceptable and is rejected. So far as the other argument of counsel for the petitioner is concerned that the total area in Plot No. 241/1 which was under cultivation was 8878 sq. meters and, therefore, the map correctly reflected Plot No. 241/1 as 8878 sq. meters is also not tenable in as much as a perusal of Form-2A and other records annexed with the writ petition and the counter affidavit show that the area under cultivation in Plot No. 241 numbered as Plot No. 241/1 was merely 8025 sq. meters and not 8878 sq. meters. The petitioner had
himself filed an objection under Section 9A-(2) of the Act, 1953 admitting that 19 bissa in Plot No. 241/2 was declared as chak out. The legality of the orders passed by different consolidation authorities declaring a particular area in Plot No. 241 as chak out could not have been raised by the petitioner at the stage of reference made for correction of map. In any case, the said issue cannot be raised now in the present writ petition. For the aforesaid reason, the second argument of counsel for the petitioner also stands rejected. The order dated 20.2.1993 relates to correction of revenue map prepared during the consolidation proceedings and there is no illegality or jurisdictional error in the order passed by respondent no. 1.
The writ petition lacks merit and is hereby dismissed .
Order Date :- 9.4.2018 Satyam
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the order dated 20.2.1993 correcting the revenue map and reducing the area of Plot No. 241/1 was legally sustainable and without jurisdictional error.
Whether the petitioner could raise the legality of past orders declaring specific areas as chak out at the stage of reference for map correction.
Whether the discrepancy between the consolidated map and original records justified a revision of the boundary.
2 provisions across 1 enactments
Chhote Lal
D.D.C.
Salil Kumar Rai
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
