Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Ashok Bhushan, J.
BRAHMI - Appellant
Versus
DISTRICT MAGISTRATE/deputy DIRECTOR OF CONSOLIDATION, MUZAFFARNAGAR - Respondents
C. M. W. P. 43296 Of 1998
Decided On : 04/04/2002
Chak Allotment - U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 - Section 20 - Section 122b (4f) of U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act - [Section 122b] - [Summary of the Acts and Sections Referenced: The judgment discusses the provisions of Section 122b (4f) of U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act and its applicability to the chak allotment proceedings under the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953. It highlights the nature of land to which Section 122b (4f) is applicable and the limitations of its application in the context of chak allotment proceedings. The judgment emphasizes the rights and title acquired by a tenure holder through chak allotment and the authority of the Deputy Director of Consolidation to modify such allotments under Section 48 of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act.]
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners challenged the order of District Deputy Director of Consolidation dated 22. 9. 1998, which affected the chak allotment in their favor under Section 20 of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953. The petitioners claimed rights under Section 122b (4f) of U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, contending that they belonged to Scheduled Caste and were in possession of the chaks since before the relevant date.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the provisions of Section 122b (4f) were not applicable to the chak allotment proceedings under U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, as the petitioners acquired rights and title over the allotted plots through chak allotment. The court quashed the order dated 22. 9. 1998 and remanded the matter for fresh consideration.
Issues: The issues involved the applicability of Section 122b (4f) of U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act to the chak allotment proceedings and the rights of the petitioners as Scheduled Caste members in possession of the chaks.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the provisions of Section 122b (4f) were not applicable to the chak allotment proceedings under U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, as the petitioners acquired rights and title over the allotted plots through chak allotment. The court emphasized the authority of the Deputy Director of Consolidation to modify such allotments under Section 48 of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act.
Final Decision: The writ petitions were allowed, the order dated 22. 9. 1998 was quashed, and the matter was remanded to the District Deputy Director of Consolidation/Deputy Director of Consolidation for fresh consideration.
( 1 ) HEARD Sri Arjun Singhal, counsel for the petitioner, Sri Ashok Mehta, learned chief standing counsel and Sri Sanjai Goswami, learned standing counsel.
( 2 ) THESE two writ petitions have been filed by the petitioner praying for quashing of the order dated 22. 9. 1998 passed by District Deputy Director of Consolidation. By the aforesaid order dated 22. 9. 1998, the Deputy Director of Consolidation decided 29 revisions including the revision of the petitioners.
( 3 ) COUNTER and rejoinder-affidavits have been exchanged. Both the parties have agreed that writ petitions be finally decided. A bunch of writ petitions with leading case being Writ Petition No. 4934 of 1999, Ram Kumar and Anr. , v. Zila Adhikari/district Deputy Director of Consolidation and Ors. , has been decided today by a separate judgment by which order of District Deputy director of Consolidation dated 22. 9. 1998 has already been quashed. In view of the aforesaid, these writ petitions are also being finally decided.
( 4 ) THE facts and submissions raised in these two writ petitions are almost similar to the facts and submissions in Writ Petition No. 4934 of 1999 which has been decided today by separate judgment. In these two writ petitions, the petitioners have challenged the order of District deputy Director of Consolidation dated 22. 9. 1998 by which the District Deputy Director of consolidation has effected the chak allotment in favour of the petitioners. The writ petitions arise out of proceedings under Section 20 of U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953.
( 5 ) IN Writ Petition No. 40758 of 1998, the petitioners case is that petitioner, Brahmi, belongs to scheduled Caste and was allotted Chak No. 922. An objection was filed by one Rahambaj and certain other persons under Section 21 (1) of U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act. The consolidation Officer passed an order dated 23. 3. 1988 effecting the chafe of the petitioner. It is claimed that the said order became final. No revision or appeal was filed. The petitioner claims to have purchased Plots No. 59/1, 59/2. 59/3 and 62/1 by a sale deed. She claims to have filed revision No. 416 which was decided by Deputy Director of Consolidation on 22. 5. 1994 by which Plot No. 741/5 was given to the petitioner. The Gaon Sabha filed certain revisions and applications before the Deputy Director of Consolidation on which the order dated 22. 9. 1998 was passed. The petitioners case is that she was not given any notice by the District Deputy director of Consolidation and the ex parte order was passed on 22. 9. 1998 affecting the chafe of the petitioner. It is clairried that petitioners chafe on Plot Nos. 740/1 and 740/2 has been taken away. In second writ petition which is Writ Petition No. 43296 of 1998, it has been submitted that petitioner was allotted Chak No. 1461 with original holding 541/4 and 541/5. In the chak allotment proceedings, the petitioner was given Plot No. 931/1. It is claimed that Deputy director of Consolidation has finalised the chak by the order dated 22. 5. 1993. Against the order dated 22. 5. 1993, the Gaon Sabha filed a revision which was rejected on 3. 5. 1993. By the order dated 22. 9. 1998, the chak of the petitioner has been affected. The petitioner claimed to be in possession of Plot No. 931/1. It is further stated in the writ petition that no opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioner by respondent No. 1 while passing the impugned order dated 22. 9. 1998.
( 6 ) THE counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the order dated 22. 9. 1998 is ex parte to the petitioner in Writ Petition No. 43296 of 1998. It is also submitted that the order of Deputy director of Consolidation dated 22. 5. 1993 has become final. Most of the submissions raised in these two writ petitions are common to the submissions raised in Writ Petition No. 4934 of 1999 which have already been elaborately dealt with in the judgment of date given in Writ Petition no. 4934 of 1999. One additi
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
