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



Rama Shanker v/s D.D.C. & Others

    Writ B No. 10249 of 2014

    Decided On, 24 February 2014

    At, High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

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

    For the Appellant: R.S. Misra, Ganesh Shankar Srivastava, Advocates. For the Respondents: Deo Dayal, Jeevan Prakash Sharma, Prabhakar Singh, Advocates.



Judgment Text

Ram Surat Ram (Maurya), J.

1. Heard Sri R.S. Misra for the petitioner and Sri Prabhakar Singh for respondents-5 and 6, Sri Amulya Ratan Srivastava for respondent-7 and Sri Jeevan Prakash Sharma for respondent-8. This writ petition has been filed against the order of DDC dated 1.1.2014, passed in chak allotment matters, under U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act").

2. The dispute between the parties is in respect of allotment of chak on plot No. 116 of village Ramna pargana Dehat Amanat, tahsil and dis

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!

trict Varanasi. Plot Nos. 116, 215 and 164 were the original holdings of the petitioner and his two brothers, namely Lalji and Bhailal, respondents-7 and 8, respectively. During consolidation, the petitioner was proposed three chaks, i.e. the first chak was proposed on plot No. 164, etc. of an area of 0.320 hectare, the second chak was proposed on plot No. 116, etc. of an area of 0.269 hectare and the third chak was proposed on plot No. 215, etc. of an area of 0.466 hectare. It is stated that earlier, an objection has been filed by the petitioner and his two brothers. The CO by order dated 21.6.1999 allowed the objection and according to his demand, the petitioner was allotted chak on plot No. 215/11, taking valuation from plot No. 116. It appears that in the meantime, for construction sewage treatment plant by Ganga Pollution Control Unit, the land of plot No. 215 has been acquired. The petitioner then filed an objection before the CO u/s 20 of the Act for allotment of chak on plot No. 116, which has been rejected by the CO by order dated 15.9.2007, on the ground that the chak objection of the petitioner had already been decided and the second objection was not maintainable.

3. The petitioner filed a revision, i.e. Revision No. 2081/07 against the order dated 15.9.2007, which has been allowed by the DDC by order dated 11.12.2007/on merit. The order has been challenged by Bhailal, in Writ-B No. 4736/2008, which has been allowed by this Court by order dated 28.1.2008 and the order of DDC dated 11.12.2007 was set aside and the matter was remanded to the DDC to decide the revision after hearing the affected persons. It is stated that after remand, the petitioner filed a time-barred appeal on 26.5.2009 against the order dated 21.6.1999, which has been dismissed in default on 20.5.2010. The petitioner then filed a time-barred revision on 23.2.2010 against the order dated 21.6.1999. Both the revisions were consolidated and decided by the impugned order of DDC dated 1.1.2014 and both the revisions have been dismissed. The DDC has held that earlier the petitioner and his brothers were given chaks according to their demand and they were satisfied. It is only when the land of the chak of the petitioner on plot No. 215 was acquired for the purposes of construction of sewage treatment plant by Ganga Pollution Control Unit then he has filed the fresh objection, concealing the fact of filing of his previous objection, which has been decided on 21.6.1999 and thereafter, filed a time-barred revision in the matter. Since the chak allotment proceeding has already become final in the year 1999, it was not found appropriate to allow the revisions and the revisions were dismissed.

4. The Counsel for the petitioner submits that plot No. 116 was the original holding of the petitioner and the petitioner was allotted one chak on it of some area. Accordingly, only on the ground of delay, the demand of the petitioner was not liable to be refused. He submits that the land of plot No. 215 is low fertile land, as such, the allotment of chak to the petitioner on this plot was causing grave injustice to the petitioner and the DDC has illegally refused to accept the demand of the petitioner for allotment of chak on plot No. 116. He further submits that respondents-5 and 6 have been allotted an uran chak on plot No. 116 which was the original holding of the petitioner.

5. I have considered the arguments of Counsel for the petitioner and examined the record.

6. So far as the arguments raised by the Counsel for the petitioner that the land of plot No. 215 was low fertile is concerned, a perusal of CH Form 23 filed by the petitioner shows that plot No. 215 was valued, @ 70 paise, 80 paise and 90 paise, white plot No. 116 was valued @ 70 paise. Roth these plot were original holdings of the petitioner and the valuation has never been challenged at any point of time. After the expiry of such a long period, the arguments raised by the petitioner that plot No. 215 is a low fertile land, cannot be accepted.

7. The contention of the petitioner that respondents-5 and 6 have been given uran chak on plot No. 116 has been denied by Counsel for the respondents. They submit that as the land in dispute was purchased by the concerned respondent in the year 1997, i.e. before framing of the provisional consolidation scheme, therefore they have been rightly allotted chak on this plot.

8. The finding recorded by the DPC that it is only after the land was acquired by Ganga Pollution Control Unit, the fresh controversy regarding chak allotment is being raised by the petitioner, after expiry of such a long period, has not been challenged before me. The chak allotment proceeding is required to be given finality and it cannot be open after expiry of such a long period. Since the petitioner has already been allotted equal valuation of land on his original holding, as such, there is nothing to show that the petitioner suffers grave loss or injustice. In the aforesaid circumstances, no interference is required by this Court. The writ petition has no merit and is dismissed.
O R