Ram Vriksh Vs D.D.C. and Others

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:9784

Court No. - 20

Case :- WRIT - B No. - 514 of 1992

Petitioner :- Ram Vriksh Respondent :- D.D.C. And Others Counsel for Petitioner :- R.S.Pandey,Ankit Pande,Virendra Bhatt

¶5

Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶6

Hon'ble Syed Qamar Hasan Rizvi,J.

¶7

Case called out in the revised list.

¶8

Heard Dr. R.S. Pandey, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Virendra Bhatt for the petitioner and Sri Badrish Tripathi, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State-respondent/ opposite party no.1.

¶9

From the perusal of the record, it transpires that Sri M.S. Khan Advocate alongwith Sri Amir Hasan Advocate filed Vakalatnama on behalf of opposite party no.2 (now deceased). However no counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of opposite party no.2.

¶10

The heirs and legal representatives of the deceased opposite party no.2 were substituted as opposite parties no. 2/1 and 2/2 in the array of parties vide order dated 05.09.2024.

¶11

The Office report dated 14.08.2024 shows that the notices were sent to opposite parties no. 2/1 and 2/2 but were not received back, as such the service of notice upon opposite parties no. 2/1 and 2/2 is deemed sufficient as per Rules of the Court.

¶12

The facts of the case, in nutshell, as culled out from the material available on record are that the petitioner and

¶13

opposite party no.2 are the tenure holders of Chak No.251 and Chak No 180 respectively. The area of chak originally held by the petitioner was only .061 Are.

¶14

During the consolidation operation, the Assistant Consolidation Officer, Tarun, Faizabad proposed a single chak to the petitioner on Plot No.175 adjacent to the chak allotted to his father.

¶15

Against the same,the opposite party no.2 filed objection before the Assistant Consolidation Officer, Tarun, Faizabad, who allowed the objection vide order dated 13.03.1991 and without assigning any reason, modified the earlier chak that was allotted to the petitioner and the chak at Plot No. 148 on 0.20 paisa valuation land was allotted to him.

¶16

The petitioner filed an appeal under Section 21(2) of the Consolidation of Holdings Act,1953 challenging the order dated 13.03.1991 passed by Assistant Consolidation Officer, Tarun, Faizabad. The Settlement Officer Consolidation, Faizabad partially allowed the said Appeal vide judgment and order dated 02.08.1991. By means of the said order dated 02.08.1991, the petitioner was again allotted the chak that was initially proposed by Assistant Consolidation Officer, Tarun, Faizabad and maintained the previous position as was existing before the Assistant Consolidation Officer.

¶17

Being aggrieved against the order dated 02.08.1991 passed by Settlement Officer Consolidation, Faizabad, opposite party no.2 (now deceased) filed Revision under Section 48 of the U.P. Consolidation and Holdings Act,1953 before opposite party no.1/ Deputy Director of Consolidation, Faizabad, which was partly allowed vide its

¶18

judgment and order dated 23.07.1992.

¶19

The submission of learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioner is that the chak that was allotted by the Settlement Officer Consolidation was rectangular in shape and adjacent to the house of the petitioner. The Sahan of the house of the petitioner is adjacent to the Plot No.175.

¶20

It has been asserted by learned counsel for the petitioner that merely on the basis of consent given by the then holder of Plot No. 175, the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Faizabad vide judgment and order dated 23.07.1992, allotted chak to the opposite party no.2 on Plot No. 175 without taking into consideration the bonafide claim of the petitioner. He submits that the impugned order was passed merely on the basis of consent of the original holder of Plot No.175 which cannot be the ground for altering the position of plot of the petitioner. Further, the Deputy Director of Consolidation while allowing the revision filed by opposite party no.2 ( now deceased) allotted chak to the petitioner which is in the form of a strip having an area of 80x5 meters as is evident from the map which is annexed as annexure no.3 to the writ petition.

¶21

The contention of the learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioner is that the aforesaid allotment of chak by the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Faizabad is unfit for cultivation and it is not practically possible for the petitioner to plough the said plot. In support of the arguments, he has relied upon the judgment passed by this Court in the case of Shanti Devi Vs. Deputy Director of Consolidation, Varanasi and another ,

¶22

reported in 1979 R.D. 72, the relevant portion of the same is extracted below:-

¶23

"4. On merits it was argued that the order passed by the Deputy Director was against the provisions contained in the Act and the petitioner was seriously prejudiced. In para 9 of the Writ Petition it has been stated that the Deputy Director directed to take out twelve anna land from the petitioner's Chak out of Plot No. 998 but in the Schedule appended to the order 21.93 annas land has been taken out. In para 12 of the Writ Petition it has been stated that as a result of the modification made in the Chak of the petitioner the width of the Chak has been reduced in such a manner that the cultivation of the petitioner's Chak became impossible. It is further asserted that in the adjustment made a portion of the petitioner's Chak has been thrown at 1 Km. away from the petitioner's well and pumping set. The opposite party although served has not appeared in this court nor has filed any counter affidavit. The allegations, therefore, remain unrebutted The effect of the allegations made by the petitioner is that the shape has become irregular longish not rectangular. If the width, is reduced and Chak is in shape of a strip it is obvious that process of tilling cannot be carried successfully. This allegation alone is sufficient to allow the Writ Petition as the entire purpose of consolidation is defeated in case the Chakholder is deprived of Cultivation. Moreover on the averments made there is a conflict in the order and the Schedule appended to the order. The finding recorded by the Deputy Director Consolidation has to be examined in the light of provisions contained in the status. If in arriving at the finding the tribunal has arrived at a conclusion which is not only contrary to the purpose of the Act but puts at nought the entire objective the finding cannot be upheld. T he petitioner has suffered substantial injustice as a result of modification in her chak."

¶24

Sri Badrish Tripathi, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel appearing for the State-respondent no.1 has placed before the Court the written instructions dated 11.02.2025 provided by Deputy Director Consolidation Ayodhya. The same is taken on record.

¶25

On the strength of the aforesaid written instructions learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel could not dispute the factual matrix of the case as discussed herein above, however, he added that the disputed Plot No. 175 is not the original holding of the petitioner or the opposite

¶26

party no.2. He submits that in the instant case both the parties have tried to obtain chak as per their own convenience and the Deputy Director of Consolidation while allowing the revision has taken into consideration the material aspect of the matter and passed the order in accordance with the provisions of Section 19 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act.

¶27

Taking into consideration the arguments advanced by Dr. R.S. Pandey, learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner as well as Sri Badrish Tripathi, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the Staterespondent no.1 and looking into the fact that the matter is an old one pertaining to the year 1992 and despite sufficient opportunity the opposite parties did not file any counter affidavit This Court proceeds to decide the matter on the basis of the material already available on record.

¶28

Precisely, the case of the petitioner is that he is in possession of the chak that was allotted to him by the Settlement Officer Consolidation, Faizabad vide its order dated 02.08.1991 and is still in continuous possession of the same. Further, the chak that was allotted by the Settlement Officer Consolidation was rectangular in shape and adjacent to the house of the petitioner. The Sahan of the house of the petitioner is adjacent to the Plot No.175. Moreover, the aforesaid allotment of chak by the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Faizabad is unfit for cultivation and it is not practically possible for the petitioner to plough the said plot which is in the shape of a strip.

¶29

From the perusal of the order-sheets, it transpires that this Court vide order dated 28.10.1992 had granted interim order in favour of the petitioner by means of which

¶30

the operation of impugned order dated 23.07.1992 passed by opposite party no.1/ Deputy Director Consolidation, Faizabad, as contained in Annexure no.4 to the writ petition, was stayed.

¶31

It is well settled in law that if the width is reduced and chak is rendered in the shape of a strip, the process of tilling of land cannot be carried out successfully and the entire purpose of consolidation would be defeated as the chak holder would be deprived of cultivation which is not only contrary to the purpose of the Act,1953 but also sets at nought the entire object of the consolidation.

¶32

20 Taking into consideration the facts as are available on record and the settled legal position, this Court is of the view that in the instant case the impugned order dated 23.07.1992 passed by opposite party no.1/ Deputy Director Consolidation, Faizabad is not in consonance with the scheme of Section 19 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 as such the writ petition deserves to be allowed.

¶33

Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed . The impugned order dated 23.07.1992 passed by opposite party no.1/Deputy Director Consolidation, Faizabad as contained in Annexure no.4 to the writ petition is set aside.

¶34

No order as to cost.

¶35

Order Date :- 14.2.2025 dk/

¶36

Digitally signed by :- DEVENDRA KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Ram Vriksh v. D.D.C. and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ram Vriksh v. D.D.C. and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt. Subhaga Devi Vs D.D.C. Fiazabad and Another

Sher Singh Vs Deputy Director of Consolidation and Others

Smt. Shanti Devi Vs D.D.C. and Others

Ram Anuj Vs D.D.C.Sultanpur and Others

Hawelia Builders Pvt. Ltd. Gautam Budh Nagar Thru. Its Director vs Anupam Srivastava and Another

Abdul Khalil and Others Objection Filed Vs D.D.C. Sultanpur and Otehrs