Allowed

Rati Pal and Ors. v. D.D.C. Sultanpur Camp Amethi and Anr.

Allahabad HC5 Jul 2023WRIB/6396/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a petition challenging a chak allotment order. The Court quashed the Deputy Director of Consolidation's order because it interfered with a lower order without recording necessary findings regarding the original tenure holder's rights and the commercial nature of the land.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order dated 31.01.2020 is set aside; the matter is remanded to the Deputy Director of Consolidation to pass a fresh order within six months.

Rati Pal and Ors. Vs D.D.C. Sultanpur Camp Amethi and Anr. — Land Acquisition | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

Court No. - 18

¶3

Case :- WRIT - B No. - 6396 of 2020

¶4

Petitioner :- Rati Pal And Ors. Respondent :- D.D.C. Sultanpur Camp Amethi And Anr. Counsel for Petitioner :- Mata Prasad Yadav,Mata Prasad Yadav Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Poonam Saroj

¶5

Hon'ble Saurabh Lavania,J.

¶6

Heard Sri Mata Prasad Yadav, learned Counsel for the petitioner, Ms. Poonam Saroj, learned Counsel for opposite party no.2 and Dr. Krishna Singh, learned Counsel for the State.

¶7

The present petition has been filed for the following main relief:-

¶8

"I. a writ of Certiorari may kindly be issued quashing the impugned order dated 31.01.2020, passed by opposite party no. 1 contained in Annexure No. 1 to this writ petition in the interest of justice."

¶9

Brief facts of the case are that the petitioners are co-sharer of the Gata No. 192 area 0.865 Hec. situated at Village Trilokpur Tehsil, District Amethi and opposite party no.2-Sita Ram has no concerned with this Gata. Gata No. 192 is 'Mool Gata' of petitioners whereas Gata No. 192 area 0.035 Hec., which is adjacent to Gata No. 192, belongs to opposite party no. 2. Despite this the D.D.C. allotted the Chak to opposite party no. 2 over Gata No. 192.

¶10

While assailing the impugned order dated 31.01.2020 passed by the opposite party no.1-Deputy Director of Consoldidation, Sultanur Camp, Amethi (in short 'D.D.C.'), the learned Counsel for the petitioners stated that Gata No. 192 area 0.865 Hec. situated at Village Trilokpur Tehsil, District

¶11

¶12

Amethi, is the Mool Gata of the petitioner and the same is adjacent to road and commercial in nature and Gata No. 191 area 0.035 Hect. situated at Village Trilokpur Tehsil, District Amethi belongs to opposite party no.2-Sita Ram, who preferred the revision in which the order impugned was passed and by the impugned order the possession of the petitioner over part of Gata No. 192 would be disturbed.

¶13

It is further submitted that the appellate authority namely Settlement Officer Consolidation Amethi (in short 'S.O.C.'), while passing the order dated 30.09.2019 categorically observed that the land in question i.e.. Gata No. 192 is original tenure ('Mool Gata') of the petitioners and the same is road side land and commercial in nature and after observing the same dismissed the Appeal No. 106/2019 preferred by opposite party no. 2-Sita Ram and affirmed the order of Consolidation Officer (in short' C.O.') dated 24.06.2019.

¶14

He further submitted that orders passed by S.O.C. and C.O. are in consonance with the principles envisaged under Section , 19 U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953, as per which the tenure holder should preferably be allotted the original tenure (Mool Gata). He also stated that as per law laid down by this Court as also by the Hon'ble Apex Court, the road side land should be allotted to the original tenure holder. In this regard he has placed reliance on the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court passed in the case of Hansraj Versus Mewalal and others reported in (2019) 3 SCC 682.

¶15

It is also stated that being aggrieved by the order dated 30.09.2019 passed by S.O.C., the revision was filed and the revisional authority namely

¶16

¶17

D.D.C., interfered in the order of S.O.C. dated 30.09.2019 and provided the Chak to opposite party no. 2-Sita Ram, over the Mool Gata of the petitioners. By this order the possession of the petitioners would also be disturbed.

¶18

He further submitted that while providing chak over 'Mool Gata' of the petitioners to opposite party no. 2-Sita Ram, the D.D.C. has not recorded any findings for the purposes of reversing the findings of the S.O.C. as per which the Gata No. 192/0.865 Hect. i.e. road side plot having commercial value, belongs to the petitioners.

¶19

He also stated that total area of Gata No. 192 is 0.865 Hect. and the petitioners are co-sharer and accordingly the petitioners were allotted 0.066 Hect. over this Gata and as per settled principle of law all the co-sharer should be allotted as far as possible share on the road side. All these aspect have been ignored by the D.D.C. Amethi, while passing the order impugned dated 31.01.2020, as such, the interference of this Court is required.

¶20

Opposing the present petition, Ms. Poonam Saroj, learned Counsel for opposite party no.2 and Dr. Krishna Singh, learned Counsel for the State, stated that D.D.C. stated that upon due consideration that while making allotment to opposite party no.2-Sita Ram, the authorities subordinate was failed to take note of the facts pertaining to chak no. 663 and 668 as also the valuation of the same and moreover, the fact pertaining to providing 'Bachat' over Gata No. 192, interfered in the order of Settlement Officer Consolidation Amethi and provided the chak to opposite party no.2-Sita Ram-revisionist as also the petitioners over Gata No. 192 and Bachat has

¶21

¶22

been indicated over Gata No. 337M, 339M and 340M. As such, no interference is required in the matter. Prayer is to dismiss the present petition.

¶23

Considered the submission of learned Counsel for the parties and perused the records.

¶24

Admitted fact of the case are to the effect that petitioners are co-sharer of Gata No. 192, which is their Mool Gata and Gata No. 191/0.035 Hect. belongs to opposite party no.2-Sita Ram. The Gata No. 192 as per the observation made by S.O.C. in its order dated 30.09.2019, is a road side land having commercial value and this land was provided by C.O. and after taking note of the entire facts, the S.O.C. passed the order dated 30.09.2019, whereby affirmed the order passed by C.O. dated 24.06.2019.

¶25

This Court considered the impugned order dated 31.01.2020 passed by D.D.C. in the light of facts indicated above. This Court finds that D.D.C., while interfering in the order of S.O.C. Amethi dated 30.09.2019 has not recorded any finding for reversing the findings of S.O.C., which being relevant on reproduction reads as under:-

¶26

"i=koyh ,oa vfHkys[kksa dk voyksdu fd;k x;kA fo)ku vf/koDrkvksa dh cgl lquh x;hA xkVk la[;k 192 lM+d ds fdukjs fLFkr gS tks ,d O;olkf;d Hkwfe gS ftldh pd ewy [kkrsnkj ds uke ij cukbZ xbZ gSA pdcUnh vf/kdkjh }kjk ikfjr vkns'k esa fdlh izdkj dk gLr{ksi djus dh dksbZ vko';drk ugh a gSA vr% vkns'k gqvk fd%&

¶27

vkns'k

¶28

mijksDrkuqlkj vihy fujLr dh tkrh gSA i=koyh okn veynjken nkf[ky nQrj gksA"

¶29

¶30

The D.D.C. has also not recorded any findings with regard to the possession of the petitioners over the plot in issue after conducting the spot inspection. Though as per law the D.D.C. is empowered to conduct spot inspection for the purposes of proper and actual allotment of Chaks.

¶31

Thus, for the reasons aforesaid, this Court is of the view that interference is required in the matter. Accordingly, the petition is allowed. The order dated 31.01.2020 is set aside. The matter is remanded back to the respondent No.1-Deputy Director of Consolidation, Sultanpur Camp. Amethi, who shall look into the matter and pass a fresh order in accordance with law expeditiously, after affording full opportunity of hearing to the parties, but without granting any unnecessary adjournment to either of the parties preferably within a period of six months from the date certified copy of this order is placed before the authority concerned.

¶32

It is open for the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Sultanpur Camp. Amethi, to conduct spot inspection for the purposes of proper and actual allotment of plot to the parties.

¶33

Order Date :- 05.07.2023 Jyoti/-

¶34

Digitally signed by :- JYOTI RAJWANI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Rati Pal and Ors. v. D.D.C. Sultanpur Camp Amethi and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rati Pal and Ors. v. D.D.C. Sultanpur Camp Amethi and Anr.

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

Smt. Moti Mani Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Revenue, Lko. and Others

Ram Lautan Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Revenue, Lucknow and Others

Smt. Upasna Gupta and Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy., Revenue Deptt., Lucknow and Others

Gokul Vs Addl. Commissioner, Lko. Division, Lko. and 17 Others

Rajesh Pandey and 2 Others Vs Sub Divisional Magistrate Patti Distt. Pratapgarh and 8 Others

Kedarnath Pal Vs State of U.P. Thru. Its Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Revenue Lko. and 2 Others