w w w . L a w y e r S e r v i c e s . i n



Munni v/s D.D.C. And Another

    Writ B No. 12469 of 2014

    Decided On, 26 February 2014

    At, High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

    By, THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAM SURAT RAM (MAURYA)

    For the Appellant: Shamimul Hasnain, Amit Kumar Srivastav, Advocates. For the Respondents: Satyendra Narain Singh, Prasad, Advocate.



Judgment Text

Ram Surat Ram (Maurya), J.

1. Heard Sri Shamimul Hasnain, Counsel for the petitioner and Sri Satyendra Narain Singh, Counsel for the respondents. The writ petition has been filed against the order of the Deputy Director of Consolidation dated 28.1.2014 by which revision of the respondents was allowed and the order dated 18.2.2014 by which correction has been made in the earlier order, in chak allotment proceedings.

2. It

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!

is admitted that petitioner and respondent-2 are real brothers and plot Nos. 64M, 65M, 66M, 67M, 68M and 69M were their original holding in which they have equal share. It is alleged by the petitioner that while making provisional consolidation scheme the chaks were carved out according to the consent of the parties as well as previous possession over the land in dispute in the family partition, this fact has been denied by the respondent 2. As the respondent has filed an objection against provisional consolidation scheme u/s 20 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"). The petitioner has alleged that the objection of the respondent was time barred and the Consolidation Officer by order dated 23.8.2013 although after hearing the respondent condoned the delay and dismissed the objection on merit. Thereafter a recall application has been filed which has been allowed by the Consolidation Officer by order dated 21.10.2013 and the chak of the petitioner has been disturbed. The petitioner filed an appeal against the aforesaid order which has been allowed by the Settlement Officer, Consolidation and the order of the Consolidation Officer has been set aside. However, the order of the Settlement Officer, Consolidation has been set aside by the Deputy Director of Consolidation by the impugned order dated 28.1.2014. Hence this writ petition has been filed.

3. The Counsel for the petitioner submits that the Consolidation Officer has no jurisdiction to review his order, thus the order of the Consolidation Officer dated 21.10.2013 was totally without jurisdiction and accordingly the appeal filed by the petitioner has been allowed. He further submits that Assistant Consolidation Officer proposed chaks with the consent of the parties on the basis of their previous possession in family partition as such no interference was required by the Settlement Officer, Consolidation to restore the chaks of the stage of Assistant Consolidation Officer. However, the Deputy Director of Consolidation has illegally allowed the revision.

4. I have considered the arguments of the Counsel for the parties and examined the record.

5. So far as the allegation that the order of the Consolidation Officer dated 23.8.2013 is concerned, the respondents filed an application for recall of the order and stated that the order was passed without hearing the arguments of the respondent and the Consolidation Officer being satisfied upon the allegation has recalled the order, by order dated 9.9.2013 and thereafter the objection was decided on merit on 21.10.2013. The petitioner in her memorandum of appeal has nowhere stated that the order dated 23.8.2013 was passed after hearing the respondent. Thus, this point has not been raised either before the Settlement Officer, Consolidation or before the Deputy Director of Consolidation. It is for the first time the petitioner has raised this point in the writ petition. Since the Consolidation Officer was satisfied on the allegation that the order dated 23.8.2013 was an ex parte order and there is nothing to show that before passing the order respondent was heard as such this Court is unable to record any contrary finding against the view taken by the Consolidation Officer.

6. So far as the contention that the chaks of the parties have been carved out on the basis of their previous possession and with the consent is concerned there is nothing on the record to show that the respondent has given any consent at the stage of Assistant Consolidation Officer. On the other hand the respondent has challenged the provisional consolidation scheme and filed his objection u/s 20 of the Act and thus there has been no consent. Both the parties are brothers and they were allotted their chaks giving frontage on the roadside according to their share. The allotment of the chaks is fully in accordance with law and equity has been adjusted between the parties. No interference is required by this Court. The writ petition is dismissed.
O R