Ram Surat Ram (Maurya), J.
1. Heard Sri S.N. Singh, Counsel for the petitioners and Sri Shiv Nath Singh and Sri Kamal Kumar Singh, for the respondents. The writ petition has been filed against the order of Deputy Director of Consolidation (respondent-1) dated 8.11.2013, passed in chak allotment proceedings, under U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act').
2. Plot 226 is the original holdings of the petitioner. Assistant Consolidation Officer proposed chaks to the petitioners taking area of plots 223 and 224. Surya Bhan and Satya Bhan (petitioners-3 and 4) filed objections claiming for allotment of chak on plot 226. The Consolidation Officer heard the objections of the petitioners along with other objections of the village and by order dated 17.1.2013 allotted the chaks to the petitioners substantially on plot 226 i.e. on their original holdings.<
Please Login To View The Full Judgment!
3. Satya Narain Singh and others (respondents-4 to 6), Beila (respondent-7) and Sabhajeet (respondent-13) filed separate appeals from the order of Consolidation Officer. In these appeals no one demanded chak on plot 226, which was the original holdings of the petitioners. The appeals were consolidated and heard together by Settlement Officer Consolidation, who by order dated 23.2.2013 decided the appeals. By this order the chaks of the petitioners were not affected and their chaks were confirmed.
4. Satya Narain Singh (respondent-4), Raj Narain Singh (respondent-5), Rajesh Singh (respondent-6) and Beila (respondent-7) filed revisions from the aforesaid order. The revisions were consolidated and heard by Deputy Director of Consolidation, who by order dated 8.11.2013, held that Satya Narain Singh, Raj Narain Singh and Rajesh Singh are brothers and Smt. Beila is their mother. They have purchased plot No. 227 and 1/3 share in plot 224. In case they are allotted chaks at one place then in future it will be convenient for their cultivation. On these findings their revisions were allowed and respondents-4 to 7 were allotted chaks on plot 226 and by carving out a new chak road in between plots 226 and 228 the petitioners are allotted chaks on plot 224. Hence, this writ petition has been filed.
5. The Counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners were allotted chaks on their original holding of plot 226 by the order of Consolidation Officer. No one filed any appeal making demand against the petitioners. The chaks of the petitioners were confirmed by Settlement Officer Consolidation. Highly time barred revisions were filed by Beila, Raj Narain, Rajesh and Satya Narain making demand for allotment of their chak on the original holding of the petitioners. The revisions were mala fide and fresh demand at the stage of revision was not liable to be entertained. Plot 226 situates in village Chamariyon at the border of village Dumraon in its southern side. The houses of the petitioners situate in village Dumraon. In between the two villages there is a brick-paved road, adjacent to plot 226 in its southern side. The petitioners are very small tenure holders and have no capacity to arrange their own private source of irrigation. They used to irrigate their plot 226 from the pumping set of their cousin, Mahendra Singh, which is installed in plot 615 of village Dumraon, in south of plot 226, at a distance of 150 meter. Deputy Director of Consolidation has not allotted even any nali up to the chaks of the petitioners. In case, the chaks of the petitioners are disturbed from plot 226, they will be deprived from the irrigation facilities as well as brick-paved road, causing grave injustice to them. Northern portion of plot 224 is affected with shadow of tree and is low fertile land. So far as the claim of the respondents for allotment of chaks of entire family at one place is concerned, in that case, the petitioners be allotted chak on plot 227.
6. In reply to the aforesaid arguments, the Counsel for the respondents submitted that Deputy Director of Consolidation has accepted equitable and just demand of the respondents. Plot 197 is the original holding of the respondents, where they have their private source of irrigation. Plots 224, 226 and 227 situate in east of plot 197 in straight line. The respondents purchased plot No. 227 and 1/3 share in plot 224. Plot 226 of the petitioner situates in middle of plots 224 and 227. As such Deputy Director of Consolidation accepted the demand of the respondents and allotted chaks to them taking plot 226 also. By carving out a new chak road through plots 224 and 226 the petitioners are allotted chaks on plot 224. Plots 224 and 226 situate at the same place and equal quality of land. Valuation of these plots are determined at the same rate. In northern side of plot 224, pumping set of Lallan Rajbhar is installed in plot 228, from where the petitioners can irrigate their plots. They can also irrigate their chaks from the pumping set of Mahendra by making a nali by the side of chak road which has been carved out in east of plot 227. The impugned order does not cause any injustice to the petitioners and the writ petition is liable to be dismissed.
7. I have considered the arguments of the parties and examined the record. A perusal of the memorandum of appeal and order of Settlement Officer Consolidation shows that in none of appeals, any demand was made for allotment of the chak on plot 226, which is the original holdings of the petitioners. The chaks of the petitioners were confirmed by Settlement Officer Consolidation. Highly time barred revisions were filed by Beila, Raj Narain, Rajesh and Satya Narain making demand for allotment of their chaks on plot 226, which is the original holding of the petitioners, Deputy Director of Consolidation thus entertained a fresh demand at his level. A perusal of the chak map of the stage of Deputy Director of Consolidation (Annexure-CA-3) shows that chak road has been carved out towards in northern side of plots 224, 226 and 227.
8. According to the petitioners in the southern side of plot 226, there is brick paved road. Although in the Counter Affidavit, the respondents have denied of any brick paved road in southern side of plot 226 but before Deputy Director of Consolidation they demanded their chaks in southern side itself. Which shows that southern side has some advantageous position. According to the petitioners, northern portion of plot 224 is affected with shadow of the tree and low fertile land. All these points are not dealt with by Deputy Director of Consolidation. Thus prima facie it appears that the petitioners have been deprived from the brick-paved road in southern side of their plot 226 while entire roadside land has been allotted to the respondents.
9. In case, the respondents bona fide demand for allotment of chak adjacent to each other being a family members, they can offer for exchange of their plot 227 from plot 226 of the petitioners. In that case, their chaks will become at one place and grievances of the petitioners will also be satisfied, and there will be no need for carving put any chak road in middle through plots 224, 226 etc. Deputy Director, of Consolidation either himself make a spot inspection or may call for a report from the subordinate authorities in respect of brick paved road in southern side as well as irrigation facility from the pumping set of Mahendra and shadow of tree, low level of in northern side. Deputy Director of Consolidation has illegally allowed the revisions of the respondents without considering the grievances of the petitioners and other relevant circumstances. These factual controversy cannot be decided in writ petition.
10. The petitioners denied and stated that they cannot irrigate their land through pumping set of Lallan Rajbhar, installed in plot 228 on the ground that land in northern side is low level land and water cannot be taken in the southern side which is high level land. Arguments of the Counsel for the respondents that the petitioners can irrigate their chak taking water through chak road cannot be accepted as a chak road cannot be permitted to be converted in chak nali. Deputy Director of Consolidation has accepted a fresh demand at his level. In such circumstances, spot inspection or calling for a report from subordinate authorities was necessary as the controversies raised by the parties could not be decided without spot inspection. In case, the demand of the respondents bona fide want their chak at one place then they may offer their original plot 227 to the petitioners as equities is liable to be adjusted between both the parties. In case, respondents-4 to 7 go in west, then other chak holders can very conveniently allotted chak in eastern-southern portion on plot 227 and there will be no need for carving out any chak road. In view of the aforesaid discussions, the writ petition succeeds and is allowed. The Order of Deputy Director of Consolidation dated 8.11.2013 is set aside. The matter is remanded to Deputy Director of Consolidation for fresh decisions in the revisions on merit in accordance with law as well as observations made above, after giving opportunity of hearing to the parties concerned.