Ram Prasad Vs Deputy Director of Consolidation Gonda and 5 Ors.

By means of the present writ petition the petitioner has challenged the order dated 3.9.2003 and 10.4.2002 passed by Deputy Director of Consolidation, Gonda as well as order dated 28.8.1997 passed by Settlement Officer of Consolidation.

¶11

The facts in brief as submitted by the petitioner are that at the start of the consolidation the petitioner was the tenure holder of two holdings situated at gata No.s 290/1 and 310 situated at VillageDumariyadeeh, Pargana Mahadeva, Tehsil Tarabganj, District Gonda. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the entire holdings of the petitioner ought to have been given to the petitioner of gata No.310 while opposite parties were allotted gata No.310 as well as remaining portion of gata No.319-320. The revision preferred by the petitioner was decided by Deputy Director of Consolidation holding that on gata No.310 the petitioner only has 1/6th share and accordingly on gata 310 as per the valuation the petitioner has been granted entire share to which he was entitled i.e. 1/6th of his share of remaining portion has been granted on gata No.s 319 and 320.

¶12

WRIB No. 177 of 2004

¶13

2

¶14

Before this Court the only ground urged by the petitioner is that instead of gata number allotted to the petitioner i.e. 319 and 320, the entire holdings has to be consolidated on gata No.310.

¶15

Learned Standing counsel, on the other hand, has opposed the writ petition and submits that maximum amount land which could have been granted to the petitioner on gata No.310 would be limited to his share in entire holding which is 1/6th share. He further submits that the entire 1/6th share of gata No.310 has already been granted to the petitioner and, therefore, he cannot have any grievance or any claim for further allocation of the land of gata No.310. With regard to allotment of gata No.s 319 and 320 it has been submitted that against the order of Settlement Officer of Consolidation this grievance was not raised by the petitioner before any of the authorities below which indicates that the petitioner has accepted the allocation of land of gata No.s 319 and 320 and, therefore, there is no ground to assail the impugned order with regard to allotment of gata No.s 319 and 320.

¶16

Considering the rival contentions, it is noticed that Deputy Director of Consolidation has duly considered the grievance raised by the petitioner. The claim of the petitioner with regard to allocation of his entire share of gata No.310 has been reviewed holding that the petitioner was not the owner of the entire gata No.310 but had only 1/6th share in the said land and the share which has been allotted appropriate land in gata No.310 the remaining share of the petitioner has been given in gata No.s 319 and 320.

¶17

Learned counsel for the petitioner could not indicate any legal provision to indicate as to how he could have been granted more land than his share in gata No.310 considering that entire 1/6th share has already been granted to the petitioner in gata No.310. Even otherwise, in case the petitioner is granted any further land of gata No.310 it will adversely affect the rights of the other co-tenure holders who would probably have been granted their share in gata No.310 and accordingly this Court does not find any ground for interference. We further note that even though in the talika annexed

¶18

WRIB No. 177 of 2004

¶19

3

¶20

with the order of Settlement Officer of Consolidation there is no mention of gata No.310 but certainly considering the order of Deputy Director of Consolidation the petitioner would be fully entitled to be granted 1/6th share of gata No.310.

¶21