Ram Surat Ram (Maurya), J.
1. Heard Sri Dinesh Kumar Pandey for the petitioner and Sri Kamal Narain Rai for the respondents. This writ petition has been filed against the order of DDC dated 21.2.2014, passed in chak allotment proceedings under U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act").
2. The dispute between the parties relates to allotment of chak on plot No. 348 of village Nivi, tappa Harbanspur, pargana Nizamabad, tahsil Sadar, district Azamgarh.
3. According to
Please Login To View The Full Judgment!
the respondents, the plot in dispute has been included in the municipal limit of Azamgarh Municipal Corporation since 1975 and the consolidation over the land was not possible. However, it was included in consolidation proceedings in the year 1980. The CO has determined the valuation of plot No. 348/1 (area 0.800 hectare), plot No. 348/2 (area 0.314 hectare) and plot No. 348/3 (area 0.2125 hectare) and the remaining area has been left as grove as well as abadi and kept outside the consolidation scheme. The contesting respondents filed a time-barred objection on 31.7.1992 for deleting the valuation of entire area of plot No. 348 on the ground that the land in dispute was lying within the municipal limit of Azamgarh Municipal Corporation as well as it is a road side land and has commercial value and it's valuation cannot be determined at the ratio of standard plot, on which the ACO submitted his report on 9.9.1992 and the CO allowed the objection of the petitioner by order dated 27.8.1993 and deleted the valuation of plot No. 348. However, in the meantime, the chak allotment proceedings came for consideration before the DDC and the DDC by order dated 5.3.1993 allotted an area of 0.089 hectares of plot No. 348 in the chak of the petitioner. Respondents have filed Writ - B No. 14208/1993 against the aforesaid order, which is pending. In the meantime, the CO by the order dated 27.8.1993 deleted the valuation of plot No. 348. The order was challenged by the petitioner in appeal, which was allowed by the ASOC by order dated 9.9.2004 and the order of CO dated 27.8.1993 was set aside and the matter was remanded to the CO to pass a fresh order, after giving opportunity of hearing as well as evidence to the parties. The revision of respondent-5, i.e. Revision No. 539/10 from the aforesaid order, has been allowed by the DDC by order dated 20.1.2014. The DDC in the impugned order held that the land being a road side land, situated on Azamgarh-Varanasi PWD Road, having a commercial value, as such, according to the circular of Consolidation Commissioner, U.P. dated 26.5.1981, either this land was liable to be kept outside the consolidation proceeding, or it was liable to be allotted to the original tenure holder. Accordingly, the CO has not committed any illegality in deleting the valuation of this plot and on this finding, the order of SOC has been set aside and the order of CO dated 27.8.1993 has been reinstated.
4. The Counsel for the petitioner submits that the order of SOC was an order of remand and does not cause any prejudice to the respondents. In such circumstances, the Revisional Court has illegally interfered in the remand order and passed the final order.
5. He further submits that only a small area of 0.049 hectares of plot No. 348 has been allotted to the petitioner. The petitioner has raised his construction over it, as such, the controversy was liable to be decided after spot inspection. Accordingly, the SOC has rightly remanded the matter to the CO, but the DDC has illegally interfered in the matter.
6. I have considered the arguments of Counsel for the petitioner and examined the record.
7. So far as the argument that the petitioner has raised construction over plot No. 348 is concerned, the respondent has already filed an objection on 31.7.1992 for deleting it's valuation and against the order of DDC dated 5.3.1993, the respondents have filed a writ petition before this Court. During the pendency of the two proceedings taken by the respondents, the petitioner was not entitled to raise any construction, particularly, when the road side land of the respondent has been allotted in the chak of the petitioner and the respondent is contesting the matter from pillar to post in all the Courts. In such circumstances, there is no justification for raising any construction over the land in dispute. The respondents, however, denied raising any construction over the land in dispute, but this Court is not inclined to examine the controversy only for the reason that as the legal proceeding is being taken by the respondent, the petitioner has no equity in his favour to raise construction during the pendency of the legal proceeding.
8. So far as the order of DDC on merit is concerned, the DDC relying upon the circular of Consolidation Officer, U.P. has directed for keeping the entire area of plot No. 348 out of consolidation. The circular dated 26.6.1981 has been consistently relied upon by this Court and it has been consistent view of this Court that the road side land which has a commercial value cannot be given valuation in ratio of standard plot, as the land of commercial value must have very high valuation. In such circumstances, the DDC has not committed any illegality and no interference is required by this Court. The writ petition has no merit and is dismissed.