# Rajaram v. D.D.C./A.D.M. (E/R), Mahoba & Ors

- **Citation:** (2021) 8 ILRA 410
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2021
- **Case number:** Writ B No. 936 of 2021
- **Bench:** Dinesh Pathak
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/rajaram-v-d-d-c-a-d-m-e-r-mahoba-ors-47217
- **Pages:** 5

## Headnote

C.S.C.,
Sri
Achal
Singh,
Sri
Mannu
Choudhary
8 All. Rajaram Vs. D.D.C./A.D.M. (E/R), Mahoba & Ors.
411
A. UP Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953
- Sections 19 & 20(1) - Provisional
Consolidation Scheme - Allotment of three
Chak - Validity - Held, Consolidation
Courts are empowered u/s 19 (1)(e) of
the Act for carving out third chak to the
tenure holder and in case it is more than
that,
approval
in
writing
of
Deputy
Directory of Consolidation is required -
There is no impediment in allotting the
third chak to any tenure holder - High
Court found no illegality in allotment of
third chak in favour of the petitioner,
which is duly permissible under the law.
(Para 12 and 13)
B. UP Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953
- Section 48 - Power of revision - Scope -
Held, power u/s 48 of the Act not only
authorizes the revisional court to examine
any finding recorded by any subordinate
court with respect to the fact or law but
also empowered it to re-appreciate any
oral or documentary evidence. (Para 16)
Writ petition dismissed. (E-1)

## Text

410 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
vide order dated 14.11.1977, name of the
recorded tenure holder was deleted and in
his place names of Dwarika Prasad and
three others were recorded over the plot in
question. Subsequently, Dwarika Prasad
and others have executed a registered sale
deed in favour of Smt. Battu Devi, vendor
of the present petitioner, who had also got
her name mutated in record, in a
proceeding under Section 12 of U.P.C.H.
Act and at later stage, she had executed a
registered sale deed dated 22.02.2005 to the
extent of 9/10rd of her share in the property
in question i.e. Gata No. 4871/01 area
0.069 Hectare in favour of present
petitioner. On the basis of the aforesaid sale
deed
dated
22.02.2005,
Assistant
Consolidation Officer has passed an order
dated 07.04.2005 under Section 12 of
U.P.C.H. Act for recording the name of the
present petitioner in place of his vendor.
All the three orders passed by the
consolidation Courts since 14.11.1977 have
attained finality inasmuch as no one has
challenged the aforesaid orders before the
competent Court.

16. In this conspectus as above, claim
of the petitioner to get his name recorded in
the revenue record, in persuance of final
order dated 07.04.2005 passed by Assitant
Consolidation Officer, after notification
under Section 6(1) of the U.P.C.H. Act, is
justified in the eyes of the law and
authorities concerned, are under legal
obligation to implement said order passed
by the competent Court, which became
final between the parties.

17. As such, the instant writ petition
is allowed with a direction to District
Magistrate(respondent No.3) to ensure the
implementation of order dated 07.04.2005,
in the revenue record, passed by Assistant
Consolidation Officer, Banda, in Case No.
347 & 359 under Section 12 of U.P.C.H.
Act, in the light of the provisions as
contained under Section 6(2) of U.P.C.H.
Act and direction issued under the
Government
order
dated
12.12.2014
expeditiously, preferably within a period of
two months from the day of production of
computerized copy of this order along with
a fresh representation which shall be
moved by the petitioner within a period of
three weeks' from today and, accordingly,
issue extract of fresh khatauni qua Gata No.
4875/1 situated in Village Oran, TehsilAtarra, Distrcit-Banda.

18. The petitioner shall file computer
generated copy of this order downloaded
from the official website of High Court
Allahabad supported by an affidavit, which
shall be verified by the concerned authority
from the website of the High Court.

19. With the aforesaid observations,
the instant writ petition is disposed of.
----------
(2021)08ILR A410
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 14.07.2021

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE DINESH PATHAK, J.

Writ B No. 936 of 2021

Rajaram ...Petitioner
Versus
D.D.C./A.D.M. (E/R), Mahoba & Ors.
 ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Smt. Gaytri Rajput, Sri Dinesh Kumar Singh

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.,
Sri
Achal
Singh,
Sri
Mannu
Choudhary
8 All. Rajaram Vs. D.D.C./A.D.M. (E/R), Mahoba & Ors.
411
A. UP Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953
- Sections 19 & 20(1) - Provisional
Consolidation Scheme - Allotment of three
Chak - Validity - Held, Consolidation
Courts are empowered u/s 19 (1)(e) of
the Act for carving out third chak to the
tenure holder and in case it is more than
that,
approval
in
writing
of
Deputy
Directory of Consolidation is required -
There is no impediment in allotting the
third chak to any tenure holder - High
Court found no illegality in allotment of
third chak in favour of the petitioner,
which is duly permissible under the law.
(Para 12 and 13)
B. UP Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953
- Section 48 - Power of revision - Scope -
Held, power u/s 48 of the Act not only
authorizes the revisional court to examine
any finding recorded by any subordinate
court with respect to the fact or law but
also empowered it to re-appreciate any
oral or documentary evidence. (Para 16)
Writ petition dismissed. (E-1)

(Delivered by Hon'ble Dinesh Pathak, J.)

1. Heard learned counsel for the
petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for
respondent
no.1,
2
and
Sri
Mannu
Chowdhary
learned
counsel
for
the
respondent no.5 i.e. Gaon Sabha.

2. In view of the peculiar facts and
circumstances of the case and the order
proposed to be passed hereunder, this Court
is proceeding to finally decide this matter at
the admission stage, without putting notice
to respondents.

3. Instant petition has been preferred
challenging the impugned order dated
18.12.2020(Annexure-5) passed by the
Deputy
Director
of
Consolidation
(respondent no.1) in Revision No.33
preferred by petitioner and also order dated
15.05.2019 (Annexuure No.3) passed by
the Settlement Officer of Consolidation
(respondent
no.2)
in
Appeal
No.26
preferred by Moti Lal (respondent no.3).

4. Facts give rise to this petition is
that in provisional consolidation scheme
petitioner has been preferred chak no.149 at
two places. First chak was proposed on two
plots i.e. plot no.253/2 min area 0.497
hectare and plot no.258/2 min area 0.332
hectare. Second chak was proposed over
plot no.345 etc., total seven plots. As per
case of the petitioner he was fully satisfied
with the proposed chak and was consented
having the same without any objection.

5. On the other had contesting
respondent no.3, Moti Lal has been
proposed chak no.114 at two places. His
first chak was proposed over plot no.380/59
etc. and second chak was proposed over
plot nos.342 and 380/40 min.

6. Feeling aggrieved respondent no.3
has filed objection under Section 20(1) of
U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act,
1953(in brevity UPCH Act), qua placement
of second chak and made prayer for
shifting it over plot no.404 and 406, which
are his original holdings. Objection as
mentioned above filed by respondent no.3
was allowed by Consolidation Officer vide
its order dated 12.03.2019 (A-2), proposing
him chak over plot no.404 min and 406 min
in place of plot nos.380/62 and 380/59
from the first chak.

7. Being not satisfy, respondent no.3
has preferred appeal beseeching allotment
of chak over plot nos.246/1 area 0.055
hectare and 246/2 area 0.684 hectare,
including
the
area
of
embankment
(Bandhi), which are his original holding, in
place of his second chak which has been
412 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
carved out over plot no.342/0.381 min and
380/40 min.

8. Settlement Officer of Consolidation
has allowed the appeal filed by respondent
no.3,
vide
order
dated
15.05.2019
(Annexure no.3), shifting his second chak
over plot no.346 etc, including the area of
embankment which belongs to him. In this
view of the matter plot no.342 area 0.381
hectare and plot no.380/4 area 0.152
hectare has been taken out from the chak of
the respondent no.3 and in its place, he has
been proposed chak over plot no.346/1 area
0.045 hectare, plot no.346/2 area 0.163
hect. and plot no.347 area 0.410 hectare.

9. It appears that due to the aforesaid
adjustment made by the Settlement Officer
of Consolidation in the chak of respondent
no.3, some prejudice caused to the
petitioner who has, being aggrieved, filed
revision
before
Deputy
Director
of
Consolidation,
registered
as
revision
no.33(Raja Ram Vs. Moti Lal) (Annexure
no.4.). Revision filed by the petitioner was
clubbed alongwith the other revisions filed
on behalf of the co-villagers which have
been decided vide common judgement and
order dated 18.12.2020 (Annexure no.5)
passed by the Deputy Directory of
Consolidation, which is under challenged
before this Hon'ble Court.

10. It is submitted by learned counsel
for the petitioner that Settlement officer of
Consolidation has illegally interfered in the
second chak of the petitioner, which
consists of his original holdings i.e. plot
no.346/1m 346/2 and 347 and has illegally
carved out third chak over plot nos.377 and
378. Deputy Director of Consolidation has
illegally affirmed the order passed by the
Settlement Officer of Consolidation. It is
further submitted that while dismissing the
revision Deputy Directory of Consolidation
has illegally made some minor alteration in
the chak of petitioner with respect to plot
no.346/2, 380/26, 377 and 378.

11. I do not find any substance in the
submission made by the learned counsel for
the petitioner challenging the creation of
third chek and supervisory power of
Deputy Directory of Consolidation making
minor alteration in the chak of the chak
holders. Learned counsel for the petitioner
has failed to point out any irregularity or
perversity in the order passed by the
consolidation court or in proceedings and
has failed to point out any violation of the
provisions as enunciated under Section 19
of UPCH Act, as well.

12.

Consolidation
Courts
are
empowered under section 19 (1)(e) of
UPCH Act for carving out third chak to the
tenure holder and in case it is more than
that approval in writing of Deputy
Directory of Consolidation is required. The
relevant provision of Section 19(1)(e) of
UPCH Act is reproduced below:-

"[19. Conditions to be fulfilled
by a Consolidation Scheme. - (1) A
Consolidation Scheme shall fulfill the
following conditions, namely, -

"(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;"
8 All. Rajaram Vs. D.D.C./A.D.M. (E/R), Mahoba & Ors.
413

13. Proviso 1 and 2 to Section 19(1)(e)
of UPCH Act. explicitly denotes that there is
no impediment in allotting the third chak to
any tenure holder; Even more than three
chaks can also be permitted that too with the
prior approval in writing of Deputy
Directory
of
Consolidation.
Meaning
thereby no interference is warranted merely
the reason that three or more than three
chaks have been allotted to tenure holder,
unless it is substantiated by the aggrieved
tenure holder that due to allotment of the
said chak, serious injury will caused to him,
applying the provision, as discussed above.

14. This Court finds no illegality in
allotment of third chak in favour of the
petitioner, which is duly permissible under
the law. Even otherwise, nothing has been
demonstrated by the counsel for the
petitioner as to what prejudice will cause to
him due to carvation of third chak by the
Settlement Officer of Consolidation. In
dismissing the revision filed by petitioner
Deputy Director of Consolidation has given
a categorical finding that first chak allotted
to the petitioner was carved out in his
original holding i.e. plot no.253 min etc.
which consists of measuring area 0.829
hectare and the second chak was also carved
out in original holding of the petitioner i.e.
plot nos.345 and 380/27min etc. measuring
area 2.235 hectare, which includes original
measuring area 1.016 hectare. So far his
third chak is concerned it has been carved
out over plot no.378 etc. measuring area
0.726 hectare, which includes original
holding of the petitioner measuring area
0.378 hectare. In this view of the matter all
the three chaks of the petitioner are consists
of maximum area of the original holding
belongs to him.

15. Demand of the petitioner qua
shifting of chak from plot no.378 etc to plot
no.346/1 and 346/2 etc has rightly been
negatived
by
the
D.D.C.
with
an
observation that petitioner has allotted
maximum area of his original holding in his
chak. A very minor alteration has been
made by D.D.C. in the third chak of
petitioner over plot no.378 proposing
change over plot no.346/2, 380/27 etc. It is
observed by learned D.D.C. that due to
aforesaid alteration the chak proposed over
plot no.346/2 etc became measuring area
1.690 hectare which includes original
holding of the petitioner measuring area
1.045 hectare. It is observed that said
proposed area in his chak is more
accommodating the area from his original
holding i.e. more than the measuring area
1.016 hectare which has earlier been
allotted to him from his original holding.
Order passed by the D.D.C explicitly
assigned the reasons in dismissing the
revision filed by the petitioner who has
been found, prima-facie, no grievance due
to allotment of 3rd chak made by S.O.C. or
the minor alteration in his chak made by
the D.D.C.

16. In his supervisory jurisdiction
under Section 48 of the UPCH Act,
revisional court is empowered to satisfy
himself as to the regularity of proceeding,
or as to the correctness, legality or
propriety of any order passed by any
subordinate
authority.
Explanation
3
appended to Section 48 of the Act, which
was introduced by U.P. Act no.3 of
2002(w.e.f. 10.11.1980), enunciate the vast
power of revisional court to examine the
correctness, illegality or propriety of any
order. Power of the revisional court under
section 48 of the UPCH Act not only
authorizes him to examine any finding
recorded by any subordinate court with
respect to the fact or law but also
empowered him to reappreciate any oral or
414 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
documentary evidence. Examining the
finding given by D.D.C. in the light of the
jurisdiction as enunciated u/s 48 of the Act,
this Court do not find any illegality or
perversity
in
the
order
passed
by
respondent no.1, who has made minor
alteration in the chak carved out over plot
no.380/27, 378 etc by providing larger area
of original holding of the petitioner.

17. In this conspectus as discussed
above, I do not find any merit in the present
writ petition warranting indulgence of this
Hon'ble Court to exercise its extraordinary
jurisdiction under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India. Petition is totally
devoid on merits, therefore, is accordingly
dismissed. There is no order for cost.
----------
(2021)08ILR A414
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD. 30.07.2021

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MRS. MANJU RANI
CHAUHAN, J.

Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 7399 of 2019

Trishul Chandra Jaiswal
 ...Applicant (In Jail)
Versus
Union of India ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Applicant:
Sri Vikrant Neeraj, Sri Ashok Kumar
Pandey, Sri Chandra Kesh Mishra, Sri
Krishna Nand Singh, Sri Satish Sharma

Counsel for the Opposite Parties:
Sri Ashish Pandey

A. Criminal Law - Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 - Section 439 -Narcotics
Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act,
1985-Sections8/20/27A/29/60
-
application-rejection-applicants
claims
parity-mandatory provision u/s 37 of the
Act is attracted-in the present case the
recovered and seized contraband was
354.205 kgs. of ganja from two vehicles,
which is much more than the commercial
quantity- for the offences u/s 27A and 29
recovery from physical possession is not
required-more so, applicant had been
involved in four cases of same nature-on
all occasions he obtained bail orders and
misused the same repeatedly- merely long
detention in jail does not entitle an
accused to be enlarged on bail.(Para 1 to
14).

B. The scheme of the section 37 reveals
that the exercise of power to grant bail is
not
only
subject
to
the
limitations
contained u/s 439 of the Cr.P.C., but is
also subject to the limitation placed by
section 37 which commences with nonobstante clause. the operative portion of
the said section is in negative form
prescribing the enlargement of bail to any
person accused of commission of an
offence
under
the
act,
unless
twin
conditions are satisfied. the first condition
is that the prosecution must be given an
opportunity to oppose the application; and
the second, is that the Court must be
satisfied
that
there
are
reasonable
grounds for believing that he is not guilty
of such offence. if either of these two
conditions is not satisfied, the ban for
granting bail operates.(Para 8,9)

C. When a stand was taken that the
accused was a history sheeter, it is
imperative for the Court to scruitinize
every aspect and not capriciously record
that the accused is entitled to be released
on bail on the ground of parity.(Para 13)

The application is rejected. (E-5)

List of Cases cited:

1. Chandigarh Administration Vs Jagjit Singh
(1995) AIR SC 705

2. Satyedra Singh Vs St. of U.P. (1996) A. Cr. R.
867