Writ petition challenging land consolidation orders was dismissed at admission stage. Court held petitioner was allotted Plot No. 714 and could not challenge final proceedings where prior orders were never contested.
Writ petition dismissed at the admission stage.
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.
Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:7413
Court No. - 8
Case :- WRIT - B No. - 85 of 2024
Petitioner :- Sarafraji
Respondent :- Deputy Director Of Consolidation, Bahraich And Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Pradeep Kumar Tripathi,Ravindra Kumar Mishra,Sanjeev Kumar Mishra
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Pankaj Gupta,Rama Kant Dixit
Hon'ble Jaspreet Singh,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. Notice on behalf of the respondents No.1 to 3 has been accepted by the office of Chief Standing Counsel. Shri Pankaj Gupta, learned counsel has accepted notice for the respondent No.5. Shri Rama Kant Dixit, leaned counsel has put in appearance on behalf of the respondent No.4 on caveat.
By means of the instant petition, the petitioner assails the order dated 30.11.2023 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Bahraich whereby the revision of the petitioner was rejected and the order passed by the Settlement Officer of Consolidation, Bahraich dated 11.04.2023 and the order passed by the Consolidation Officer, Bahraich dated 09.02.2023 have been affirmed.
The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that she is the recorded tenure holder of Plot No.714 which is roadside facing plot. Since, the petitioner was illiterate, she did not know about the proceedings and as such some part from the Plot No.714 was reserved for 'bachat'. It is stated that since it was a roadside plot, accordingly, if at all some deduction had to be made for the surplus plot, it could have been deducted from the other plot of the petitioner i.e. Plot No.387.
It is further submitted that it is at the later stage when the petitioner became aware, she filed her objections along with an application seeking condonation of delay. The Consolidation Officer by means of its order dated 09.02.2023 found that the objections of the petitioner is not maintainable and also barred by limitation and rejected the same. The petitioner thereafter preferred an appeal which also met the same fate so also the revision.
In the aforesaid circumstances, the substantive rights of the petitioner has been affected which prompted the petitioner to approach this Court.
Learned standing counsel as well as Shri Rama Kant Dixit, learned counsel for the private-respondent has submitted that insofar as the petitioner is concerned, she has been given the land of Plot No.714 as shall be evident from the Annexure No.4 annexed with the petition.
It is further pointed out that initially, the proceedings were conducted by the Consolidation Officer wherein by means of its order dated 15.07.2022, the plots of the petitioner along with other co-sharers was divided. It is taking note of the aforesaid division that the petitioner has also been granted rights over her original plot No.714.
In the aforesaid circumstances, the orders passed by the three consolidation authorities are appropriate and do not require any interference.
Having considered the aforesaid submissions and from the perusal of the material on record, it could not be disputed by the learned counsel for the petitioner that after the division of the plots vide order dated 15.07.2022, the petitioner has also been granted rights over the Plot No.714. It is also not disputed by the learned counsel for the petitioner that substantive order dated 15.07.2022 whereby the division was made was never assailed by the petitioner even while filing the objections at the later stage.
Considering the aforesaid and from the perusal of the material including the reasoning given by the consolidation authorities, this Court is of the clear opinion that insofar as the petitioner is concerned, she has already been granted the requisite plot No.714 and as such the submission that the plot which has been curved out from the petitioner's plot had irrigation facility, this aspect was never raised before the Consolidation Courts apart from the fact that the order dated 15.07.2022 was never challenged. Accordingly, at this stage, the petitioner cannot be permitted to disturb the proceedings which have been culminated in a final adjudication.
In view of the aforesaid, the instant petition being devoid of merit is dismissed at the admission stage itself .
Order Date :- 25.1.2024 Rakesh/-
Digitally signed by :- RAKESH PRAJAPAT High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the petitioner can challenge the final adjudication regarding land plot division when the substantive order was never assailed.
Whether the petitioner is entitled to claim surcharged land as part of her allotted roadside plot.
Sarafraji
Deputy Director Of Consolidation, Bahraich
Jaspreet Singh
As recorded by the court registry
2 orders share this CNR
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
