The High Court dismissed the writ petition challenging orders in chak allotment proceedings under the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act. The Court upheld the lower authorities' finding that the adjustment conforming to Section 19 was not illegal or perverse.
Writ petition 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. - 7
Case :- WRIT - B No. - 784 of 2021
Petitioner :- Sripal And Another Respondent :- Deputy Director Of Consolidation, Amroha And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Surendra Prasad Mishra Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Brajesh Shukla
Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J.
Heard Mr. S.P. Mishra, learned counsel for petitioner, who is available on audio/video link. Learned Standing Counsel representing respondents. 1 and 2 is also available.
Challenge in this writ petition is to the impugned order dated 03.12.2020 passed respondent 2 Settlement Officer of Consolidation, District Amroha, as well as order dated 03.02.2021 passed by Deputy Director of Consolidation, Amroha.
Present writ petition arises out of orders passed in chak allotment proceedings.
Record shows that feeling dissatisfied with the allotment of chaks in provisional consolidation scheme, respondent 3 Siyaram filed an objection under Section 21 (1) of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act. Objection filed by respondent 3 Siyaram came to be dismissed by Consolidation Officer vide order dated 16.3.2020. Feeling aggrieved by the order dated 16.3.2020 referred to above, respondent 3 Siyaram preferred an appeal in terms of Section 21 (2) before Settlement Officer of Consolidation, Amorha, who allowed the same, vide order dated 3.12.2020, by directing that since share of respondent 3 Siyaram exists on plot No. 375 and aforesaid plot has not been allotted to respondent 3, therefore, allotment made in favour of respondent 3 requires to be modified. Accordingly, Settlement
Officer of Consolidation modified the chaks allotted to respondent 3 Siyaram. Consequently, the chaks allotted to Sri Pal and Rambeer came be affected. Feeling aggrieved by order dated 03.12.20202 passed by Settlemement Officer of Consolidation, petitioners preferred a revision before Deputy Director of Consolidation/Additional District Magistrate (Finance and Revenue), District Amorha Camp Hasanpur, who by order dated 21.12.2020 has dismissed the same. Thus feeling aggrived by order dated 21.12.2020 passed by respondent 1 Deputy Director of Consolidation, Amorha as well as order dated 03.12.2020 passed by Settlement Officer Consolidation, Amroha, petitioners have now approached this Court by means of present writ petition.
Learned counsel for petitioners contends that in the allotment made in provisional consolidation scheme, petitioners were allotted one chak. Petitioners have made the land so allotted fit for irrigation by their own labour and improvement made. In support of above, learned counsel for petitioners has invited attention of Court to averments made in paragrphs 15 and 16 of the writ petition.
Learned Standing has opposed the present writ petition. He contends that a categorical finding has been recorded by Settlement Officer of Consolidation that survey plot No. 375 M is original holding of respondent 3 which contains his private source of irrigation. However, respondent 3 has been deprived of his private source of irrigation. Settlement Officer of Consolidation has recorded a further finding that respondent 3 is a small tenure holder and has been allotted two chaks. Consequently, second chak allotted to respondent 3 on survey plot no. 128 M etc., was abolished and the entire area of second chak was adjusted in survey plot No. 375 M. As a result of aforesaid respondent 3 has now been allotted one chak with his
private source of irrigation. As such, adjustment made by respondent 2 is in conformity with the provisions of Section 19 of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953. Averments made in paragraphs 15 and 16 of writ petition have not been evidenced by any document. As such, same are liable to be ignored.
Having heard learned counsel for petitioners, learned Standing Counsel and upon perusal of record, Court finds that findings recorded by respondent 2 Settlement Officer of Consolidation, Amroha as affirmed by respondent 1 Deputy Director of Consolidation, Amroha can be said to be illegal, perverse or erroneous. Adjustment made is in conformity with the provisions of Section 19 of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953. Therefore, it cannot be said that impugned orders are unjust or illegal. There is nothing on record on the basis of which adjustment made by respondent 2 Settlement Officer of Consolidation, Amroha as affirmed by Deputy Director of Consolidation, Amroha for dismissing claim of petitioners could be interfered with.
No good ground exists to entertain this writ petition. The writ petition lacks merit and is liable to be dismissed.
It is, accordingly, dismissed.
Order Date :- 6.7.2021 HSM
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the impugned orders regarding chak allotment in consolidated holdings can be interfered with.
Whether the findings recorded by the Settlement Officer regarding irrigation source and tenure holding are illegal or perverse.
3 provisions across 1 enactments
Sripal And Another
Deputy Director Of Consolidation, Amroha
Settlement Officer of Consolidation, Amroha
Siyaram
R.S. Dubey
Sudhir Kumar
Rajeev Misra
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
