Back
1999 Supreme(All) 1541
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Naseemuddin, J.
HAUSILA PRASAD - Appellant
Versus
DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF CONSOLIDATION, SULTANPUR AND OTHERSWRIT PETITION NO.446 (CONS) OF 1997 - Respondents
Writ Petition 446 (Cons) Of 1997
Decided On : 09/30/1999
GOPAL JI TEVARI, R.P.LAL, RAJ KUMAR PANDEY, V.K.SRIVASTAVA, VINOD KUMAR
The Deputy Director of Consolidation cannot revise an order of the Settlement Officer, Consolidation, without recording findings on the correctness, legality, or propriety of the order, and the allotment of a Chak must comply with the conditions specified in Section 19(1)(e) and 19(1)(f) of the Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953.
Headnote:
CONSOLIDATION OF HOLDINGS ACT, 1953 - SECTION 11A, 19(1)(E), 19(1)(F), 48 - REVISION - CONDITIONS TO BE FULFILLED BY CONSOLIDATION SCHEME - BAR OF OBJECTION - ALLOTMENT OF COMPACT AREA - ALLOTMENT OF PLOT WITH PRIVATE SOURCE OF IRRIGATION - JURISDICTION OF REVISIONAL COURT - INTERPRETATION.
Fact of the Case:
Petitioner Hausila Prasad challenged the order of the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Sultanpur, allotting his Chak No. 344/1 to the opposite parties and shifting his Chak to plots originally belonging to the opposite parties. The petitioner argued that the allotment of his Chak was arbitrary and violated the provisions of the Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the C.H. Form 2a, prepared during the survey, showed that plot Nos. 344/1 and 344/2 belonged to the petitioner and that there was a tubewell on plot No. 344/2. The court also noted that the Settlement Officer, Consolidation, had dismissed the appeal filed by the opposite parties challenging the allotment of plot No. 344/1 to the petitioner.
Issues: 1. Whether the Deputy Director of Consolidation had the jurisdiction to revise the order of the Settlement Officer, Consolidation, without recording findings on the correctness, legality, or propriety of the order. 2. Whether the allotment of plot No. 344/1 to the opposite parties violated the provisions of Section 19(1)(e) and 19(1)(f) of the Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the Deputy Director of Consolidation could not have set aside the order of the Settlement Officer, Consolidation, without recording findings on the correctness, legality, or propriety of the order, as required under Section 48(1) of the Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953. 2. The court held that the allotment of plot No. 344/1 to the opposite parties violated the provisions of Section 19(1)(e) and 19(1)(f) of the Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953, as it resulted in the petitioner losing his compact area and his plot with the private source of irrigation.
Final Decision: The court allowed the writ petition, quashed the impugned order of the Deputy Director of Consolidation, and directed the Deputy Director to modify the previous Chak allotted to the petitioner and allot the old Chak on his original holding as it existed prior to the passing of the impugned order.
( 1 ) THIS writ petition has been filed by Hausila Prasad under Article 226 of the Constitution of india for quashing order dated 30. 8. 97 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation. Sultanpur, opposite party No. 1 in respect of the petitioners Chak No. 344/1 of village Rebha, pargana and Tehsil Amethi district Sultanpur (Annexure No. 8 ).
( 2 ) LEARNED counsel for both the parties were heard.
( 3 ) THE brief facts for the purpose of the disposal of the present writ petition are that petitioner hausila Prasad was allotted Chaks. Out of them the first Chak was in respect of several plots including plot Nos. 344/1 and 344/2 which was the bhumidhari of the petitioner also. That in C. H. Form No. 2a during survey, trees were found by the authorities on plot No. 344/1 ; some of the part of this plot was parti. That a tubewell exists on plot No. 344/2 which is the private source of irrigation. That on the objection of Sarjoo Prasad, opposite party No. 2 the Chak was allotted to him of plot Nos. 145, 146 including plot No. 144. That Sarjoo Prasad challenged the order dated 30. 3. 96 passed by the Consolidation Officer before the Settlement Officer, consolidation, Sultanpur. That opposite parties Nos. 3 to 5 had not filed any objection before the consolidation Officer. However, appeal was filed by all the opposite parties. The appeal was dismissed on 17. 8. 96 by the Settlement Officer. Consolidation. A revision was filed before the d. D. C. , Sultanpur, on 16. 9. 97 which was allowed and it is under challenge. By the Impugned order the D. D. C. allotted Plot No, 344/1 to the opposite parties in their Chak No. 173 and shifted the Chak of the petitioner which was allotted on his original holding 344/1 on plot Nos. 545, 543 and 544 which originally belonged to the opposite parties. The petitioner says that Chak was arbitrarily shifted which is against Section 19 of the Act. That plot No. 344/1 had 60 paise valuation which was a higher valuation. That allotment of this Chak is as udan Chak and it was the third Chak of the petitioner. The petition has been contested and the main case is that the trees standing on plot No. 344/1 belonged to the opposite parties.
( 4 ) C. H. Form No. 2a shows that plot Nos. 344/1 and 344/2 both belonged to the petitioner. Needless to say that C. H. Form No. 2a is prepared under Rule 21 of the Rules framed under the act. Rule 21 runs as follows : 21. Sections 8, 54 (2) (d ). After the test and verification of the annual register as prescribed in rules 19, 20 and 20a) a field-to-field partal of all the plots shall be carried out by the consolidator in association with the Consolidation Committee and as many tenure-holders of the village as he can collect and the result shall be noted by him in Khasra Chakbandi in C. H. Form 2a. The mistakes and disputes discovered during the partal shall also simultaneously be noted in the appropriate columns of the list of mistakes and disputes in land records in C. H. Form 4. "
( 5 ) A reading of the Rule shows that this Akar Patra is prepared after the test and verification of the annual registers and a field-to-field partal of all the plots and then it is noted in khosra of chakbandi. The mistakes and disputes discovered during the partal are simutaneously noted in the appropriate columns, etc. There is nothing to show that anybody else except the petitioners was the owner of these plot Nos. 344/1 and 344/2. This Partal in C. H. Form 2a also shows that there is a tubewell on plot No. 344/2. It is admitted to the parties that trees are standing on plot no. 344/1. It may be noted that, firstly opposite party No. 2 had filed objections praying for allotment of his Chak on plot No. 144. The Consolidation Officer accepted and allotted plot No. 144 and the prayer was accepted. However, the appeal was filed before the Settlement Officer, consolidation, taking up a case that plot No, 344/1 be also given to opposite party in his Chak. The Settlement Officer, Co
