The court upheld the Deputy Director of Consolidation's order regarding chak allotment, emphasizing that no prejudice was shown by the petitioner and that the D.D.C. acted within legal provisions.

JUDGMENT :

Dinesh Pathak, J.

1. List revised. Learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents are present. None is present for the private respondents. This Court, vide order dated 06.08.2024, has deemed the service of notice upon the private respondents sufficient.

2. The petitioner has invoked the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India assailing the order dated 18.12.1989 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation (in brevity 'D.D.C.') partly allowing the revision no.2701 filed on behalf of the present petitioner.

3. Facts culled out from the record are that instant writ petition is arising out of chak allotment proceeding. During provisional consolidation scheme, present petitioner has been proposed chak no.48 at two places; first chak consists of plot nos.55, 66 etc. and second chak consists of plot nos.84, 85 etc. Grievance of the petitioner is that the Consolidation Officer has illegally allotted the area for drainage lane being plot no. 56 through his plot no.55, therefore, area of drainage lane (plot no.56) may be taken out and his chak over plot no.55 may be carved out towards the western side of the drainage lane. The Settlement Officer of Consolidation (in brevity 'S.O.C.'), vide order dated 31.01.1989, has dismissed the appeal filed on behalf of the petitioner. Having been aggrieved with the order passed by the S.O.C., the petitioner has preferred revision. The D.D.C., vide order impugned dated 18.12.1989, has partly allowed the revision, which is under challenge before this Court.

4. Having considered the rival submissions advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Standing Counsel and perusal of record, it is manifested that before the S.O.C., the petitioner came with the plea that his first chak over plot no.55 may be modified to the extent that same may be carved out towards the western portion of drainage lane (plot no.56). The S.O.C. has dismissed the appeal on the ground that plot no.56 has been earmarked for drainage lane which runs through plot no.54, therefore, change in the location of chak allotted to the petitioner is not feasible. However, while filing the revision, petitioner came with new plea that the area allotted in his first chak is uneven which is causing difficulty in cultivation and maximum area of the chak is fallen under the drainage lane, therefore, he may be allotted chak including the entire area of plots no.55 and 56. Second plea has been taken to shift his second chak over plots no.80 and 81. Third plea has been taken that area of plot no.49 etc. may be adjusted over the aforesaid plots no.80 and 81. The D.D.C. has partly allowed the revision whereby area of plots no.55, 56, 75, 76, 82 and 83 having valuation of Rs.184.34 paise has been taken out from the chak of the petitioner and equal valuation of area i.e. Rs.184.34 paise has been allotted in the chak of the petitioner over plots no.105, 101, 102 etc. It is apposite to mention that the D.D.C., vide order impugned dated 18.12.1989, has modified the chak of several chak holders namely chak nos.435, 242, 267, 224, 311, 176, 237, 303, 161, 296, 422, 85, 86, 434, 436, 49, 283, 453, 13, 222, 526, 500, 407, 484, 196, 301, 463, 329, 297, 91, 93, 320 and 445. However, all these chak holders have not been made party in the instant writ petition. Even entire amendment chart prepared by the D.D.D. in pursuance of the order dated 18.12.1989 has not been filed by the present petitioner. In absence of other chak holders who are affected owing to the order dated 18.12.1989, it would not be justified to interfere with the said order without according opportunity of hearing to them. Prima facie, it appears that no prejudice is caused to the petitioner owing to the order passed by the D.D.C.

5. Solitary submission advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner is that chak of the petitioner has been made four in numbers which is not