Back
2015 Supreme(All) 3455
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Ram Surat Ram (Maurya), J.
Vijay Bahadur and Others - Appellant
Versus
Dy. Director of Consolidation Mau and Another - Respondent
Writ - B No. - 42515 of 2015
Decided On : 02-09-2015
For the Petitioner: K.N. Shukla.
For the Respondent: C.S.C.,Rajesh Maurya.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the significance of spot inspection for properly appreciating the evidence and the procedural aspects of spot inspection and hearing.
Headnote:
Consolidation of Holdings Act - Chak Allotment - Section 20, Section 21, Section 9-B, Section 44-A - The court discussed the provisions of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953, particularly focusing on Section 20 for objections, Section 21 for the procedure for disposal of objections, Section 9-B for spot inspection, and Section 44-A for the powers of the Deputy Director of Consolidation. The court emphasized the importance of spot inspection for properly appreciating the evidence and highlighted the legal principles established in various cases by the court.
Fact of the Case:
The writ petition was filed against the order of Deputy Director of Consolidation regarding chak allotment proceeding under U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953. The dispute arose from the allotment of chak on specific plots in the village, leading to objections and revisions by the parties involved.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the plot in question did not situate on the main PWD road and that there was no evidence to prove private partition between the parties. It also emphasized the importance of spot inspection for properly appreciating the evidence and highlighted the legal principles established in various cases by the court.
Issues: The issues revolved around the location and commercial value of the plots, the allocation of chak, the existence of private partition, and the procedural aspects of spot inspection and hearing.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the importance of spot inspection for properly appreciating the evidence and highlighted the legal principles established in various cases by the court. It also clarified the procedure for spot inspection and the significance of considering the evidence already recorded during the trial.
Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed as it was found to have no merit.
Ram Surat Ram (Maurya), J.
1. Supplementary affidavit filed today is taken on record. The counsel for the petitioners is permitted to implead the persons as respondents-3 and 4.
2. Heard Sri K.N. Shukla, for the petitioners and Sri Shiv Ram Singh along with Sri Rajesh Maurya, for respondent-2.
3. The writ petition has been filed against the order of Deputy Director of Consolidation dated 16.01.2015, passed in chak allotment proceeding under U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as the Act).
4. The petitioners and Smt. Badami (now represented by respondent-2) were co-sharers, having 1/2 share each, in plots 636 (area 0.181 hectare), 702/1266-M (area 0.747 hectare), 1102 (area 0.559 hectare) and 1147 (area 1.761 hectare) of village Salahabad, tahsil and district Mau, which were recorded jointly in their names in basic consolidation year. Smt. Badami executed a sale deed dated 13.02.1989 of plot 702/1266-M (area 0.336 hectare) in favour of Jagat Narain Singh. Assistant Consolidation Officer by order dated 28.12.2010, held share of Smt. Bindu Devi (respondent-2) as 1/2 in the aforesaid plots except its chak out area. During partal, plots 1147/2 (area 0.076 hectare) was found as pokhari, 1147/3 (area 0.153 hectare) was found as grove, 1147/5 (area 0.101 hectare) and 702/1266/2 (area 0.030 hectare) were found as abadi and these plots were left as chak out. Assistant Consolidation Officer proposed two chaks to the petitioners (chak-503), i.e. first chak was proposed on 1147/1 and 1147/4 (total area 1.345 hectare) and second chak on plots 688/1 and 702/1266/1 (total area 0.077 hectare). Smt. Bindu Devi (respondent-2) (chak-506) was proposed three chaks i.e. first chak was proposed on 1102 (total area 0.460 hectare), second chak on plots 635/1, 636, 637, 638 and 647 (total area 0.484 hectare) and third chak on plots 702/1266/1 (area 0.609 hectare).
5. Smt. Bindu Devi filed a time barred objection under Section 20 of the Act, claiming for allotment of chak on plot 1147, according to her share in it, on the ground that this plot situated on PWD road and had commercial value. Consolidation Officer, by order dated 22.11.2014, held that this plot did not lie on the main PWD road Mau to Chirayakot but by the side of village road, in which the petitioners had installed rice-mill. Chak dispute of the village has already been decided from the stage of Deputy Director of Consolidation. On these findings, he dismissed the objection. Smt. Bindu Devi filed a revision from the aforesaid order. Deputy Director of Consolidation, by order dated 16.01.2015, found that plot 1147 situated on main pitch road and has commercial value. Smt. Bindu Devi was co-sharer of 1/2 share in it. On these findings, he allowed the revision and allotted a chak to Smt. Bindu Devi on plot 1147/1 (area 0.588 hectare), taking it from the chak of the petitioner. In lieu of it, the petitioners were allotted chak on plot 702/1266 (area 0.609 hectare) and 1147/4 (area 0.066 hectare) which was left as bachat land. Hence this writ petition has been filed.
6. The counsel for the petitioner submitted that plot 1147 did not situate on the main PWD road Mau to Chirayakot but by the side of village road, in which the petitioners had planted rice-mill and has also constructed their house and had private source of irrigation as under private partition between the parties, entire plot 1147 was given in exclusive possession of the petitioners. Plot 702/1266 also situates on pitch road and hardly at a distance of 500 meter from plot 1147. Assistant Consolidation Officer proposed the chak to the petitioners on plot 1147, in view of his rice-mill, house, grove and private source of irrigation on it. Chak of respondent-2 on plot 702/1266 was also on original holding. As some of its area has been sold by mother of respondent-2 as such transferees were allotted chak on roadside land of this plot and respondent-2 was allotted chak on backside, which has now been
