Dismissed

Shareef Ahmad v. Sanjeev Kumar Singh and Ors.

Uttarakhand HC26 Jul 2017WPMS/1664/2006

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court examined a writ petition concerning land consolidation in Uttar Pradesh. While the petitioner was initially allotted land adjoining a road as per his original holdings, he later sought modification of an 'L shape' plot in revision. The Court held that the original allotment met legislative intent and dismissed the revision claim.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition regarding the Deputy Director's order dismissing the revision prayer for partial modification of the appellate order was dismissed.

Shareef Ahmad Vs Sanjeev Kumar Singh and Ors. — Land Acquisition | Uttarakhand HC (2017)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL

¶2

Writ Petition (M/S) No. 1664 of 2006

Shareef Ahmad

...….……Petitioner

Versus

Sanjeev & ors. ………. Respondents

¶7

Present: Mr. Deependra Rawat, Advocate holding brief of Mr. Vijay Bhatt, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Pankaj Purohit, Deputy Advocate General for the State.

¶8

Hon’ble Sharad Kumar Sharma, J. (Oral)

¶9

The writ petition was entertained by this Court. An interim order dated 13.11.2006 was granted in favour of the petitioner, directing the petitioner to take steps to serve the private respondents. On 05.12.2006, notices were issued to respondent nos. 4 to 11. An office report was given on 19.11.2007, observing that the service upon respondent nos. 4-6 and 8-11 deemed sufficient and service not sufficient on respondent no. 7, as incorrect address.

¶10

Thereafter as many as on 4 occasions, learned counsel for the petitioner appeared and has taken time for effecting services on respondent no. 7. Then steps were taken. Yet again it was reported on 04.11.2009 by the office that the address given of respondent no. 7 is not correct. Thereafter, the learned counsel for the petitioner has appeared before this Court on 2 or 3 dates and had made no request for serving upon the respondent no. 7 on the correct address.

¶11

The Court, lastly on 05.11.2009 directed him to serve respondent no. 7. For the second time, he was granted time on

¶12

¶13

09.02.2010 for service and to take steps for serving the unserved respondent no. 7 on the correct address.

¶14

Since then, the matter was listed once again on the 4^th occasions. On 23.10.2013, he yet again availed the time for serving upon respondent no. 7 on correct address and yet he has taken steps on the wrong address which was earlier reported way back in the year 2007. This is a dereliction on the part of the petitioner. Hence no latitude can be granted to him by way of giving an opportunity to serve respondent no. 7 now.

¶15

As per the office report, respondent nos. 4 to 6 and 8 to 11 are being reported to have been deemed served. Hence the Court is proceeding to hear the writ petition on its merits. The respondent no. 1 is represented by Mr. Rakesh Thapliyal, Advocate. No one is present on his behalf even in the revised call.

¶16

Heard Mr. Devendra Rawat, Advocate holding brief of Mr. Vijay Bhatt, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶17

In the proceedings before the Consolidation Officer when the village was brought under consolidation, an objection was raised by the petitioner invoking Section 20 read with Section 21 of the Consolidation of Holdings Act wherein he has contended that the chak allotted to him on 358 has not been proposed on his original holdings hence, it is in violation of Section 19 of the Consolidation of Holdings Act.

¶18

¶19

In the objection filed, he further submitted that ever since the time of his predecessors i.e. late grandfather, Chote, his original holdings was lying in gata no. 4, 5/1 and 6. According to the objection all these plots were adjoining to the road and thus he prayed that these plots since being adjoining to the road under the Consolidation Scheme they carry a high valuation and it ought to have been allotted to the petitioner.

¶20

Under the spirit of Section 19 and as laid down by the Hon’ble Allahabd High Court that a chak holder, who at the time of a village being brought under consolidation has a plot adjoining to the road is chaks should not be disturbed. The reason being that the chucks adjoining to the roads carry high value and this was the case which was pleaded by the learned counsel for the petitioner before the consolidation officer that he should be allotted on the original holdings and his chucks adjoining to the roads may not be disturbed but his objection was dismissed by the Consolidation Officer vide its order dated 22.11.2004 for want of prosecution.

¶21

Aggrieved against the said order, since there was no adjudication on merits, he preferred an appeal almost reiterating the identical grounds which was taken by him before the Consolidation Officer. The appeal preferred by the petitioner has been allowed and the talika was amended in his favour. In consequence of which he was allotted chak on his original holding as apparent from page 44 of the writ petition.

¶22

¶23

Being aggrieved against the partial denial of his claim of allocation of original holding in his gata, the petitioner preferred a revision being Revision No. 52/209/04-05. On a precise reading of the memorandum of revision dated 29.01.2005, they wanted a slight modification before the authority and prayed for the first time that the ‘L shape’ plot allotted to him on gata no. 6, may be rectified.

¶24

The claim as raised by the petitioner in the revision for the first time could not have been entertained because it was not the case of the petitioner before the Consolidation Authority or before the Settlement Officer, Consolidation whereas allocated chak on his original holding adjoining to the road. The Deputy Director, Consolidation by the impugned order dated 03.08.2006 has dismissed the revision and upheld the order passed by the Settlement Officer, Consolidation partly allowing the appeal of the petitioner and allocating him the chak on his original holding adjoining the road.

¶25

The implication of Section 19 of the Consolidation Holdings Act is to retain the benefits of a tenure holder to the best possible extent under Consolidation Holdings Act, there cannot be an absolute satisfaction to the demand raised for allocation of chaks, because any minor alteration will be adversely affecting all the tenure holders in a sequel adjoining to the plot which has been sought to be altered in pursuance of an objection or by an Appellate or Revisional Authority and that is why legislature under Section 19 has used a word “as far as possible”.

¶26

¶27

The reason being that it is always a prerogative of the Consolidation Authority to ensure that the intention of Section 19 is met with in relation to the tenure holder to its optimum, but under such a circumstance where Section 19 contemplates the provision of allocation of chak there cannot be an absolute satisfaction which the authority could provide to the claiming party.

¶28

As such since on reading of the talika, as the petitioner has been allocated chaks according to his demand on his original holding which adjoins the road, his grievance almost stands settled by the order of Settlement Officer Consolidation, the same is upheld. As far as the writ petition relates to the order of Deputy Director, Consolidation where he has sought for partial modification of the appellate order, the writ petition is dismissed upto that extent only.

¶29

(Sharad Kumar Sharma, J.) 26.07.2017

¶30

Mahinder/

Shareef Ahmad v. Sanjeev Kumar Singh and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shareef Ahmad v. Sanjeev Kumar Singh and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt. Raksha Rani Marya and Ors. Vs S.K.Jain and Another

Laxman Singh Vs State

Narayan Dutt Joshi Vs Khilpati Singh and Ors.

Kendriya Upbhogta Sahakari Vs P.O Lobour Court and Ors.

Kalu Ram Vs Deputy Director of Consoidation and Others

State and Ors. Vs D.J Nainital and Ors.