Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2023 Supreme(All) 1766

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Dinesh Pathak, J.
Radhey Shyam and Others – Petitioners
Versus
State of U.P. And Others – Respondents
Writ - B No. - 715 of 2023
Decided On : 24-02-2023

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Rajesh Kumar
For the Respondent: Tripathi B.G. Bhai

The central legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation and application of the U.P.C.H. Act, particularly Section 21(1), in determining the rightful allocation of land and valuation in reference proceedings.

Headnote:
Restoration Application - U.P.C.H. Act - Section 21(1) - 24.8.1995, 18.11.2002, 25.4.2005, 13.9.2022, 4.1.2023 - The court discussed the restoration application filed under the U.P.C.H. Act and the subsequent orders modifying the reference order. The key legal provisions of the U.P.C.H. Act, particularly Section 21(1), were interpreted to determine the rightful allocation of land and valuation, ultimately influencing the court's decision to dismiss the writ petition.
Fact of the Case:
The writ petition arose from a restoration application filed in a reference proceeding under the U.P.C.H. Act. The petitioners contested the allocation of land and valuation, leading to subsequent orders and legal arguments.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the restoration application was rightly allowed, and subsequent orders were justified based on the interpretation of the U.P.C.H. Act. The petitioners' claims were dismissed, and no grounds for interference were found.
Issues: The key issues revolved around the rightful allocation of land and valuation, the legality of restoration application, and the alleged irregularities in the orders passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the interpretation of the U.P.C.H. Act, particularly Section 21(1), and the factual findings regarding the allocation of land and valuation. The court concluded that the orders under challenge were not illegal or ambiguous, leading to the dismissal of the writ petition.
Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed as misconceived and devoid of merits, with no order as to the costs.

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard learned counsel for petitioners, learned Standing Counsel representing respondents No. 1 to 4 and learned counsel for private respondent No.5.

2. Grievance of the petitioners is that Deputy Director of Consolidation has illegally allowed the restoration application filed on behalf of contesting respondents, vide order dated 13.9.2022, against the previous order dated 13.12.2005. Petitioners are aggrieved as well with the order dated 4.1.2023 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation by which restoration application filed by them against the order dated 13.9.2022 has been rejected.

3. Facts culled out from the averments made in the writ petition are that the present writ petition is arising out of restoration application filed in the reference proceeding. Settlement Officer of Consolidation has passed order dated 24.8.1985 in appeal, arising out of proceeding under Section 21(1) of U.P.C.H. Act, filed on behalf of respondent No.5 proposing the entire area of his original holding i.e. plot No.216 in his chak. Said order became final up to the stage of Deputy Director of Consolidation on revision being filed on behalf of the petitioners. It appears that at subsequent stage, petitioners have filed one another revision to adjust the valuation of Rs.2.11 paise which was left to be adjusted in their chak during the provisional consolidation scheme. Aforesaid revision was allowed by order dated 18.11.2002 passed by Deputy Director of Consolidation proposing the valuation of Rs.2.11 paise over plot No.729 M having measuring area 0.070 hectare. In pursuance of order dated 24.8.1995 and order dated 18.1.2002, a reference proceedings had been finalized by order dated 25.4.2005. Amendment chart appended to the reference order dated 25.4.2005 reveals that contesting respondent No.5 (chak holder No.324) has been proposed chak over plot No.216 and 193. Petitioners (chak holder No.269) have been given area over plot No.216 in place of plot No.729/7M measuring area 0.070 hectare, having valuation of Rs.2.11 paise. Having been aggrieved against the reference order dated 25.4.2005 respondent No.5 has filed the restoration application alleging therein that after the order dated 24.8.1995 no area remained over plot No.216, which has finally been adjudicated upon in his favour, therefore, by the reference order dated 25.4.2005 petitioners have illegally been allotted chak over plot no.216. It is further averred in the restoration application that the order dated 25.4.2005 has been passed ex-parte without affording him any opportunity of hearing. Deputy Director of Consolidation, vide its impugned order dated 13.09.2022, has allowed the restoration application dated 13.12.2005 and, simultaneously, slightly modified the reference order dated 25.4.2005 by which area in question having valuation of Rs.2.11 paise belongs to petitioners has been adjusted over plot No.193 towards the south side adjoining the chak road and the respondent No.5 has been shifted over his original holding i.e. plot No.216, meaning thereby area of both the parties have been interchanged between them. Deputy Director of Consolidation, on restoration application being filed on behalf of the petitioners against the order dated 13.9.2022, has dismissed the restoration application, vide order dated 4.1.2023, with categorical finding that previous order dated 13.9.2022 was passed after hearing both the parties on merits, therefore, there is no occasion to entertain the restoration application against the order dated 13.9.2022 passed on merits.

4. Learned counsel for petitioners submits that the Deputy Director of Consolidation has illegally passed the order dated 13.9.2022 sans opportunity of hearing accorded to the petitioners. Reference order dated 25.4.2005 was validly passed in favour of the parties by which petitioners have been given the area having valuation of Rs.2.11 paise over the plot no.216. It is further submitted that the restoration application move

Click Here to Read the rest of this document