Dismissed

Bhujbal v. Deputy Director of Consolidation and 4 Others

Allahabad HC29 Oct 2021WRIB/1514/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Court dismissed a writ petition challenging an order by the Deputy Director of Consolidation under the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act. The Court held that since the Deputy Director could not be dislodged on its findings regarding equity and irrigation facilities, there was no ground to interfere.

What did the court decide?

The Writ Petition failed and was dismissed.

Bhujbal Vs Deputy Director of Consolidation and 4 Others — Land Acquisition | Allahabad HC (2021)

¶1

Court No. - 38

¶2

Case :- WRIT - B No. - 1514 of 2021

¶3

Petitioner :- Bhujbal

¶4

Respondent :- Deputy Director Of Consolidation And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Sanjeev Kumar Khare,Dharmendra Kumar Tripathi Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶5

Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J.

¶6

Heard Mr. D.K. Tripathi, learned counsel for petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for respondent-1.

¶7

This writ petition has been filed challenging order dated 19.11.2020, passed by respondent-1- Deputy Director of Consolidation, Mahoba in Revision No. 11 of 2018-19 (Nathuram Vs.Bhujbal) under sections 48 (3) of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act (hereinafter referred to as "U.P.C.H. Act").

¶8

Present writ petition arises out of chak allotment proceedings.

¶9

Record shows that feeling aggrieved by allotment of chaks made in Provisional Consolidation scheme, petitioner filed an objection under section 20 of U.P.C.H. Act before Assistant Consolidation Officer. Objections filed by petitioner came to be registered as Case No. 137 of 2018 (Bhujbal Vs. Nathuram and another) before Consolidation Officer. Aforesaid objections came to be rejected by Consolidation Officer vide order dated 5.6.2018.

¶10

Against order dated 5.6.2018, passed by Consolidation Officer, Mahoba petitioner preferred an appeal in terms of Section 21 of U.P.C.H Act before Settlement Officer of Consolidation, Mahoba. Same was registered as Appeal No. 264 of 2020 (Bhujbal Vs. Nathuram and another). Aforesaid appeal came to be allowed by Settlement Officer of Consolidation, Mahoba vide order dated 17.10.2018. Perusal of order dated 17.10.2018 goes to show that respondent-2 Settlement Officer of Consolidation, Mahoba on the basis of material on record as well as on the basis of spot inspection of land in dispute came to the conclusion that grievance raised by petitioner regarding allotment of chaks is genuine. Settlement Officer of Consolidation further found that petitioners have continuously been in possession over the land which is situate in east-west direction. On the aforesaid premise, settlement Officer of Consolidation, Mahoba allowed the appeal filed by petitioner.

¶11

Against order dated 17.10.2018, contesting respondent-4 Nathu Ram filed a revision before Deputy Director of Consolidation, Mahoba which was registered as Revision No. 11 of 2018-19 (Nathuram Vs.Bhujbal) under sections 48 (3) of U.P.C.H Act. Respondent-1 Deputy Director of Consolidation, Mahoba by means of order dated 19.11.2020, allowed the revision on the findings that if allotment of chaks made in provisional consolidation scheme is allowed to stand, then both the parties shall have irrigation facility available. Respondent-1 further came to the conclusion that Chak Holder No. 1109 should be provided with a chak road. Accordingly, respondent-1 modified the order of appellate Court by providing that chak allotted to the parties in the provisional consolidation scheme is maintained with the modification that a chak road shall be carved out on survey plot no. 1070/1/2 to facilitate Chak holder No. 1109

¶12

Learned counsel for petitioner submits that respondent-2 Settlement Officer of Consolidation, Mahoba on the basis of spot inspection and the ground reality set aside order passed by Consolidation Officer. However, respondent-1 Deputy Director of Consolidation Mahoba without reversing the findings recorded by Settlement Officer of Consolidation, Mahoba has set aside the order passed by him. On the aforesaid premise, it is thus urged that impugned order dated 19.11.2020, passed by respondent-1 Deputy Director of Consolidation, Mahoba is liable to be quashed by this Court.

¶13

Per contra, learned Standing Counsel has opposed this writ petition. He submits that ground taken by Settlement Officer of Consolidation for modifying the allottment of chaks made in provisional consolidation scheme can be a ground of equity but certainly not a ground in law. He further submits that equity shall follow the law. No illegality has been committed by respondent-1 Deputy Director of Consolidation Mahoba in setting aside the order passed by Settlement Officer of Consolidation. No finding was recorded by Settlement Officer of Consolidation, Mahoba to the effect that even if allotment of chaks made in provisional consolidation scheme is altered even then parties will have irrigation facility available. As such, no illegality has been committed by respondent-1 Deputy Director of Consolidation Mahoba in allowing the revision.

¶14

Having heard Mr. D.K. Tripathi, learned counsel for petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for respondent-1, and upon perusal of record, this Court finds that respondent-1 Deputy Director of Consolidation Mahoba has allowed the revision filed by respondent-4 Nathu Ram on the findings that in case of allotment of chaks made in provisional consolidation scheme is

¶15

allowed to stand, then both the parties will have irrigation facility available. Apart from above, respondent-1 Deputy Director of Consolidaiton Mahoba has adjusted equity by providing a chak road to chak holder no. 1109. Aforesaid findings recorded by respondent-1 Deputy Director of Consolidation, Mahoba have neither been challenged nor learned counsel for petitioner could dislodge the same. It is well settled that if the findings could not be dislodged, then conclusion cannot be altered.

¶16

In view of above, this Court does not find any good ground to interfere in present writ petition.

¶17

Consequently, the Writ Petition fails and is liable to be dismissed.

¶18

It is accordingly dismissed.

¶19

Order Date :- 29.10.2021 Arshad

Bhujbal v. Deputy Director of Consolidation and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bhujbal v. Deputy Director of Consolidation and 4 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

Maya Devi Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Swaminath Gajadharprasad Mishra Vs State of U.P. and 8 Others

Akabari Bano Vs State of U.P. and 8 Others

Jang Bahadur Vs Sub Divisional Officer and 5 Others

Pradeep and 3 Others Vs State of U P and 2 Others

Vijay Pratap Pasi Vs District Magistrate and 4 Others