Dismissed

Raghvendra and 4 Others v. State of U.P. and 4 Others

Allahabad HC24 Nov 2023WRIB/3614/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging the allotment of a chak on a small plot (0.034 hectares). The Court held that the allotment was substantially compliant with the Act and relied on the spot inspection report, finding no perversity in the lower authorities' decisions.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed; impugned orders of Appellate and Revisional Authorities upheld.

Raghvendra and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others — Land Acquisition | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:223311

¶2

Court No. - 48

¶3

Case :- WRIT - B No. - 3614 of 2023

¶4

Petitioner :- Raghvendra And 4 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Kailash Nath Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Dharmendra Kumar Tripathi

¶5

Hon'ble Saurabh Shyam Shamshery,J.

¶6

Heard Sri Kailash Nath Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Dharmendra Kumar Tripathi, learned counsel for the respondents.

¶7

Petitioners have their original holdings on Plot Nos.414, 436, 439, 208 and 127 etc. situated in Village-Kelawar, Pargana and Tehsil-Mariyahu, District-Jaunpur.

¶8

During consolidation proceedings, no chak was proposed on Plot No.127. However, valuation was determined and corresponding share was given on the other plots. Learned counsel for the petitioners has contended that it was a roadside land in which petitioners' share was 0.034 hectares.

¶9

Consolidation Officer vide order dated 12.5.2023 rejected the objection of the petitioners by returning a finding that Plot No.127 was not their original holding. However, the Appellate Authority has corrected the said error and held that it belongs to petitioners and they have a very small share in it. Prayers of the petitioners were rejected and revision petition filed against Appellate Court's order was also rejected.

¶10

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that even if petitioners have a very small share in Plot No.127, still since it was abut to the road and being a valuable land, therefore, chak may be allotted on the said land. He further submits that there is a 'Naala' between the petitioners' land and respondents' land which was also not taken note of despite an averment made before the Appellate Authority and Revisional Authority.

¶11

Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submits that allottment of land was done in accordance with the provisions of Uttar Pradesh Consolidation of Holdings Act,1953 and there is no

¶12

illegality in the impugned orders.

¶13

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records.

¶14

In the aforesaid background, petitioners have many plots as their original holdings as well as that area of petitioners share in Gata No.127 being 0.034 hectare i.e. a very small area in comparison to their largest holding. It is not much in dispute that chak was allotted to them taking note of their largest holdings.

¶15

Section 19-(e) of the Act of 1953 provides that every tenure holder as far as possible, be allotted a chak at the place where he holds largest part of his holding.

¶16

As referred above, petitioners have been allotted chaks on their largest holding including their chaks as per the determination of valuation of chak situated at Gata No.127.

¶17

Appellate Authority after making spot inspection passed the following order:

¶18

"अपपीललारቕኍ व ववपकपी ससंकठला ्ቚसलाद कको ससुनला गयला तरला अवभिललेख व भिभूवचि्ቔ कला अवलकोकन वकयला गयला एवसं स्रल वनरपीकण भिपी पकኘ᭎ ककी उपसस्रवत मम वकयला गयला। अवभिललेख व भिभूवचि्ቔ कले अवलकोकन सले वववदत हहै वक अपपीललारቕኍगण रलाघवलेन्द आवद चिकदलार ससं० 336 कको स०चि०अ० दलारला गलाटला 510 वम० आवद पर 0.616 हले० 49.26 मला० कला चिक ्ቚवद्ቖ हहै। अपपीलकतलाቔኋ दलारला चिकबसंदपी अधधिकलारपी कले समक चिक ससंशकोधिन हलेतसु आपधቈኌ ्ቚस्तसुत वकयला गयला रला जको वदनलासंक 12.05.2023 कको वनरस्त हको गयला। धजससले कसुब्धि हकोकर अपपीलकतलाቔኋ दलारला अपपील यकोधजत कर गलाटला ससं० 127, 208 पर चिक वदयले जलानले ककी मलासंग वकयला हहै। उቈኌरवलाद चिकदलार ससं० 505 कला चिक गलाटला ससं० 127 व 128 पर ्ቚवद्ቖ हहै। गलाटला ससं० 128 उቈኌरवलादपी कला मभूल नसंबर हहै। अपपीलकतलाቔኋ कला चिक उकले बडल े मभूल नसंबर 511 सले सटले हहए चिक ्ቚवद्ቖ हहै। गलाटला ससं० 127 पर अपपीललासंट कला असंश मला्ቔ 0.034 हले० हपी असंश हकोतला हहै। वहलासं पर अपपीललासंट कको चिक वदयला जलानला ससंभिव नहपी हहै बशतቔኋ वक अपपीललारቕኍ कला जको चिक ्ቚवद्ቖ हहै वह 0.616 हले० कला हहै जब तक गलाटला ससं० 208 पर चिक वदयले जलानले ककी मलासंग हहै। गलाटला ससं० 208 पर उቈኌरवलादपी ससंकठला ्ቚसलाद कला चिक नहीሻ ्ቚवद्ቖ हहै। गलाटला ससं० 208 पर चिकदलार ससं० 303,

¶19

171 , 310 अ, 851 आवद कको चिक ्ቚवद्ቖ वकयला गयला हहै। धजन्हम अपपीलकतलाቔኋ दलारला फरपीक मसुकदमला नहीሻ बनलायला गयला हहै। ऐसपी सस्रवत मम अपपीलकतलाቔኋ ककी मलासंग स्वपीकलार हकोनले यकोग्य नहीሻ हहै। अपपील वनरस्त हकोनले यकोग्य हहै।"

¶20

Revisional Authority has not found any illegality in the aforesaid order and rejected the revision petition of petitioners by the following order which is reproduced below:

¶21

"महैनम प्ቔलावलपी कला अवलकोकन वकयला। प्ቔलावलपी पर उपलब्धि सलाቌኚय , अवर न्यलायलालय कले आदलेश एवसं अवभिललेखኘ᭎ कला भिपी अवलकोकन वकयला। गलाम कले चिकबन्दपी वलादपी सले सम्बसन्धित वनस्तलारण कले ्ቅ म मम गलाम कहैललावर परगनला व तहसपील मवडयलाहह जनपद जजौनपसुर मले पभूवቔኋ सभूचिनलान स ुलार गलाम अदलालत कला आयकोजन वकयला गयला, धजसमले उभियपकኘ᭎ कको ससुनला गयला। अवभिललेख एवसं भिभूवचि्ቔ कले अवलकोकन सले स्प्ቖ हहै वक वनगरलानपीकतलाቔኋ चिकदलार ससंख्यला 336 कको स०चि०अ० दलारला गलाटला ससंख्यला 510 वम०, 517 वम० आवद मभूल नम्बर ललेतले हहए 0.616 हले० मभूल्यलासंकन 49.26 कला चिक ्ቚवद्ቖ वकयला गयला हहै। वनगरलानपीकतलाቔኋ ककी आपधቈኌ चि०अ० स्तर पर वनरस्त ककी गयपी हहै। अवर न्यलायलालय बन्दकोबस्त अधधिकलारपी चिकबन्दपी स्तर पर भिपी अपपील वनरस्त वकयला गयला हहै। धजससले कसुब्धि हकोकर वनगरलानपी दलाधखल ककी गयपी हहै, जबवक उቈኌरवलादपी चिकदलार ससंख्यला 505 कला चिक गलाटला ससंख्यला 127 व 128 पर ्ቚवद्ቖ हहै। गलाटला ससंख्यला 128 उቈኌरवलादपी कला मभूल नम्बर हहै। वनगरलानपीकतलाቔኋ कला चिक उसकले बडले मभूल नम्बर 511 सले सटले हहए हपी चिक ्ቚवद्ቖ हहै। जबवक गलाटला ससंख्यला 127 पर वनगरलानपीकतलाቔኋ कला चिक उसकले बडले मभूल नम्बर 511 सले सटले हहए हपी चिक ्ቚवद्ቖ हहै। जबवक गलाटला ससंख्यला 127 पर वनगरलानपीकतलाቔኋ कला मला्ቔ 0.034 हपी असंश हहै। अततः नलाम कले अऩ स ुलार चिक मम ससंशकोधिन वकयला जलानला उवचित ्ቚतपीत नहपी हकोतला हहै। तद्न स ुलार मलेरपी दृव्ቖ सले वनगरलानपी बलहपीन व वनरलाधिलार हकोनले कले कलारण वनरस्त वकयले जलानले यकोग्य हहै।"

¶22

Spot inspection report is not on record. However, as recorded by Appellate Authority,it is not evident that as alleged by the petitioners Gata No.127 was abut to road. It is also not on record that any objection was filed to spot inspection report and even there is no reference of any 'Naala'.

¶23

In the aforesaid circumstances as referred above that principles of allotment of chaks have been substantially complied with,

¶24

therefore, any interference in the concurrent findings which are based on spot inspection report and that there is no material that findings returned were perverse, therefore, in the light of judgment passed by Supreme Court in Krishnanand (Dead) through Legal Representatives and others Vs. Deputy Director of Consolidation and others, (2015) 1 SCC 553, I do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned order.

¶25

Writ petition is accordingly dismissed.

¶26

Order Date :- 24.11.2023

¶27

¶28

Digitally signed by :- SANDEEP BHATTACHARYA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Raghvendra and 4 Others v. State of U.P. and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Raghvendra and 4 Others v. State of U.P. and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ramautar Nishad Vs State of U.P.

Ganesh Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Kunwar Lal Vs State of U.P.

Swami Nath Shukla Vs State of U.P. and 31 Others

Ram Surat Yadav Vs State of U.P. and 7 Others

Yamuna Singh Vs State of U P and 8 Others