Allowed

Ram Khelawan v. D.D.C.

Allahabad HC24 Jan 2019WRIB/1292/1986

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Held that an order amending chak roads under the UP Consolidation Act passed without an opportunity of hearing and without reasons was contrary to law. The writ petition was allowed, the order quashed, and the matter remanded for fresh proceedings.

What did the court decide?

The order dated 18.10.1985 was quashed and the matter was remanded to the Deputy Director of Consolidation to pass fresh orders after giving an opportunity of hearing.

Ram Khelawan Vs D.D.C. — Land Acquisition | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 22

¶2

Case :- WRIT - B No. - 1292 of 1986

¶3

Petitioner :- Ram Khelawan Respondent :- D.D.C. Counsel for Petitioner :- C.B. Misa,Shri Kant Counsel for Respondent :- S.C.

¶4

Hon'ble Salil Kumar Rai,J.

¶5

In view of the office report dated 10.3.2015, service of notice on respondent nos. 3 and 4 is deemed sufficient.

¶6

List has been revised.

¶7

No one has put in appearance on behalf of respondent nos. 3 and 4.

¶8

Heard Sri Shri Kant, counsel for the petitioner and the Standing Counsel representing respondent nos. 1 and 2.

¶9

During the consolidation operations in the village, applications were filed by certain villagers stating that a link road was required to link the village to the main road and the chak roads proposed by the Consolidation Officer were not in straight line and, therefore, there was water logging on the said chak roads making it difficult for the villagers to cultivate and use their agricultural holdings. On the applications of the villagers, the Consolidation Officer, after hearing the concerned villagers which included the petitioner, through his order dated 22.7.1985 submitted a reference to the Deputy Director of Consolidation, i.e., respondent no. 1 wherein he proposed three different alternatives providing for chak roads on different plots including a chak road between Chak Nos. 108 and 150, i.e., chaks held by the petitioner. The aforesaid reference through order dated 22.7.1985 was

¶10

approved and forwarded to respondent no. 1 by the Settlement Officer of Consolidation vide his order dated 25.7.1985. On the aforesaid reference made by the Consolidation Officer, Reference No. 312 under Section 48(3) of the Uttar Pradesh Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as, 'Act, 1953') was registered in the court of Deputy Director of Consolidation, i.e., respondent no. 1. The respondent no. 1 vide his order dated 18.10.1985 disposed of the reference by amending the chaks allotted to the villagers which included the petitioner and proposed chak roads on plots which were not proposed by the Consolidation Officer in his reference order dated 22.7.1985. The order dated 18.10.1985 passed by respondent no. 1 has been challenged in the present writ petition.

¶11

A supplementary affidavit has been filed by the petitioner annexing the chak map and showing the position of chak roads as proposed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation, i.e., respondent no. 1. It has been stated in the supplementary affidavit that due to the chak roads proposed by respondent no. 1, the petitioner would not be able to use his holdings for agricultural purposes as there would be water logging on his chaks because of the proposed chak roads and as the proposed chak roads have four sharp bends of 90 degrees each, therefore, the petitioner would also not be able to use the said chak roads for transportation of his agricultural produce through bullock carts. It has been stated in the writ petition that the order dated 18.10.1985 was passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation without giving any opportunity of

¶12

hearing to the petitioner and the said order is a nonspeaking order in as much as no reasons have been given in the same by the Deputy Director of Consolidation for differing from the proposal of the Consolidation Officer and proposing the chak roads in a manner different than what was proposed by the Consolidation Officer in his reference order dated 22.7.1985.

¶13

No counter affidavit has been filed by the Standing Counsel controverting the aforesaid averments made by the petitioner in his writ petition.

¶14

A joint reading of Section 48(1) and Section 48(3) of the Act, 1953 shows that while making a reference, the aggrieved persons are entitled to opportunity of hearing at the stage, the reference is made by a sub-ordinate Consolidation Officer to the Deputy Director of Consolidation and subsequently by the Director of Consolidation while passing any orders on the reference.

¶15

It is evident from the impugned order dated 18.10.1985 passed by respondent no. 1 and from the averments made in the writ petition that the order dated 18.10.1985 was passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation without giving any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. The petitioner was entitled to an opportunity of hearing by respondent no. 1 before the impugned order was passed as the said order adversely affected the petitioner. It is also evident from the order dated 18.10.1985 that the said order is a non-speaking order in as much as no reasons have been given in the same for proposing chak roads in a manner different than what was proposed by the

¶16

Consolidation Officer vide his order dated 22.7.1985 especially in the circumstance that the Consolidation Officer had proposed three different alternatives to the Deputy Director of Consolidation. For the aforesaid reasons, the order dated 18.10.1985 passed by respondent no. 1 is contrary to law and is liable to be set-aside. The matter is liable to be remanded back to the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Mirzapur, i.e., respondent no. 1 to pass fresh orders in accordance with law.

¶17

The writ petition is allowed .

¶18

The order dated 18.10.1985 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation, is, hereby, quashed and the matter is remanded back to the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Mirzapur, i.e., respondent no. 1 to pass fresh orders in Reference No. 312 after giving an opportunity of hearing to the affected villagers.

¶19

Order Date :- 24.1.2019 Satyam

Ram Khelawan v. D.D.C.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ram Khelawan 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

Gaon Sabha Barai Vs D.D.C. and Others

Purshottam Vs D.D.C. and Others

Bhagirathi Vs the Dy.D.C. and Others

Baba Raho Das Vs D.D.C.

Nanhey and Another Vs D.D.C. and Others

Prabhu Dayal Vs D.D.C. and Others