At, High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
By, THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAM SURAT RAM (MAURYA)
For the Appellant: Pradeep Kumar Rai, Advocate. For the Respondents: S.K. Pundir, Advocate.
Ram Surat Ram (Maurya) J.
1. Heard Sri Pradeep Kumar Rai for the petitioner and Sri S.K. Pundir for the respondents. This writ petition has been filed against the orders of Deputy Director of Consolidation dated 18.1.2014 and 10.1.2002.
2. The consolidation authorities have submitted a reference for carving out a chak road through plot Nos
Please Login To View The Full Judgment!
. 26 and 23. The aforesaid plots were allotted in the chak of Rafiq Ahmad, son of Ali Hasan. The reference was accepted by DDC by order dated 10.1.2002. It appears that the northern portion of the land in dispute has been transferred by Rafiq Ahmad in favour of the petitioner through sale deed dated 5.5.2004. The petitioner thereafter filed an application dated 6.9.2013 for recall of the order dated 10.1.2002 on the ground that the order has been passed without giving any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. The DDC by order dated 23.9.2013 recalled the order dated 10.1.2002.
3. Roop and Others filed an application dated 26.10.2013 for recall of the order dated 23.9.2013. Then after hearing the parties, the order dated 18.1.2014 has been passed by the DDC, by which the earlier order dated 10.1.2002 has been reinstated.
4. The Counsel for the petitioner submits that under the provisions of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act 1953, no chak road can be provided for the purposes of abadi land. Therefore, the chak road has been carved out against the provisions of the Act. He further submits that the Statement of Principle has been prepared at the earlier stage, but no one filed any objection, claiming any chak road through the land in dispute, as there had been already a chak road through the western side, connecting, the abadi plot No. 27/1 (New No. 147), Therefore, the claim for chak road has neither been raised at the stage of preparation of Statement of Principle, nor at the state of preparation of provisional consolidation scheme. It could not have been entertained by way of a reference, after finalization of the consolidation in the village.
5. In reply to the aforesaid arguments, the Counsel for the respondents submits that the petitioner has purchased the land in dispute through sale deed dated 5.5.2004, while the reference had already been passed on 10.1.2002, after hearing the original tenure holder. The original tenure holder has never raised any objection in carving out the chak road, which serves better public purpose, as such, after purchasing the land, the petitioner cannot be permitted to re-open the matter. He further submits that although the petitioner purchased the land on 5.5.2004, but the restoration application was filed on 6.9.2013, which is highly belated and there was no reason for condoning the delay. The order being in the knowledge of the original tenure holder, which has not been challenged by him, as such, the transferee cannot be permitted to challenge the impugned order.
6. I have considered the arguments of Counsel for the parties and examined the record.
7. The objection raised by Counsel for the respondents appears to be genuine. By the impugned order dated 10.1.2012, the chak road has been carved out and the original tenure holder has never raised any objection, either before carving out of the chak road, or thereafter. In such circumstances, the petitioner, who has purchased the land in dispute by the sale deed dated 5.5.2002, i.e. nearly after more than 2 years, he cannot be permitted to file the restoration application, as the chak road has already been carved out. The circumstances of the case, no interference is required by this Court. The writ petition is dismissed.