IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Saurabh Lavania, J.
Gauri Shankar Pal – Appellant
Versus
State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. /Addl. Chief Secy. Revenue, Lko. And Others
WRIT - B No. - 311 of 2025
Decided On : 11-04-2025
JUDGMENT :
Saurabh Lavania, J.
1. Heard Shri Bhoop Chandra Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri Hemant Kumar Pandey, learned Standing Counsel for the State/opposite party Nos. 1 to 4 as well as Shri Anil Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the private opposite parties and perused the record.
2. By means of this petition, the petitioner has sought the following main relief:-
"(i) Issue a Writ, order or direction in the nature of Certiorari thereby quash/set-aside the order dated 07.03.2025 passed by Deputy Director of Consolidation, Sultanpur in Case No. 1794/2024 (Chini Prasad versus Ramesh Pal) under section 48(1) of U.P. Jot Chakbandi Adhiniyam, 1953 which is contained as Annexure No. 1, in the interest of justice."
3. Assailing the impugned orders, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner stated that the impugned order is liable to be interfered with by this Court, as the same has been passed without considering the genuine grievance of the petitioner as also that the same is against the principles embodied under Section 19 of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (in short "Act of 1953").
4. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the State and Shri Anil Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the private opposite parties stated that the Chak(s) provided to the private opposite parties are just and proper and in fact the petitioner is not aggrieved by the order impugned in any manner.
5. Considered the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
6. This case relates to allotment of chak(s), as such, before proceeding further, it would be useful to refer some judgments of this Court on the issue involved and the relevant provision of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (in short "Act of 1953").
Section- 19(1)(e) of the Act of 1953 is as follows:-
"19. Conditions to be fulfilled by a Consolidation Scheme.-(1) A consolidation scheme shall fulfill the following conditions, namely, (a)...... (b)...... (c)...... (d)......
(e) every tenure-holder is, as far as possible, allotted a compact area at the place where he holds the largest part of his holding :
Provided that no tenure-holder may be allotted more chaks than three, except with the approval in writing of the Deputy Director of Consolidation:
Provided further that no consolidation made shall be invalid for the reason merely that the number of chaks allotted to a tenure-holder exceeds three."
7. From reading of Section 19 (1)(e) and considering the case of the parties, it is clear that consolidation Authorities can not pass arbitrary order. It is no doubt correct that during chak allotment proceedings, the allotment cannot be made in such a manner which may satisfy every tenure holder but the consolidation authorities are required follow the mandate of the Act/Rules, as explained by the judicial pronouncements.
8. In the context of this case, the following observations of the judgment passed by this Court in the case of Asbaran v. Deputy Director of Consolidation, Gonda; 1986 A.W.C. 1088, are relevant.
“This provision contained in Section 19 (1)(f) enjoins upon the consolidation authorities to allot plot on which exists his private source of irrigation or any other improvement. Apart from it, no other provisions of Section 19 of the Act enjoins upon the consolidation authorities to make allotment of chak to the tenure-holder on his original plot and the consolidation authorities in view of provisions contained in Section 19 (1)(e) of the Act are required to allot, as far as possible, a compact area to the tenure-holder at place where he holds largest part of his holding. The word as far as possible occurring in Section 19 (1)(e) of the Act cannot be construed so as to give an unfettered discretion to the consolidation authorities in not making an allotment of a chak of compact area at place where the tenure holder holds his largest part of holding. It while making allotment of a chak to the tenure holder the Consolidation
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.