# Ram Badan v. The D.D.C. Azamgarh & Ors

- **Citation:** (2020) 2 ILRA 146
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2019-11-06
- **Case number:** Writ B No. 1445 of 1997
- **Bench:** J.J. Munir
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/ram-badan-v-the-d-d-c-azamgarh-ors-45179
- **Pages:** 8

## Headnote

A. U.P. C&H Act-challenging-order-depriving the
petitioner-of
his
road
side-valuable
landinherited by him-without assigning any reasonunless-authorities left with no option-under a
compelling circumstance-in violation of settled
4 All. Ram Badan Vs. The D.D.C. Azamgarh & Ors.
147
legal principle-valuable land either to be excluded
from consolidation operations or-included in the chak
of the original chakholder-impugned order-illegal &
arbitrary-Petition Allowed.

B. Held, the added fact that a sector road now runs
through between those plots where the third
respondent claims his Abadi and old Khasra No. 60/3
that is the petitioner's original holding, occurrence of
even a slight prejudice to the third respondents, let
alone a compelling circumstance that may leave no
option with the Authorities but to deprive the
petitioner of some part of his valuable roadside land,
part of Khasra No. 60/3 (old), is a conclusion that
cannot be said to be a legitimate exercise of
discretion by the Consolidation Authorities, one way.
Here is a case where the Deputy Director of
Consolidation affirming the Settlement Officer of
Consolidation has deprived the petitioner of valuable
roadside land in violation of settled legal principles
that valuable roadside land is either to be excluded
from consolidation operations or included in the
Chak of that Chakholder, who held it as original
holding. This principle is to be departed from for very
compelling reasons that are not forthcoming in this
case. In the result this writ petition succeeds and is
allowed. The impugned order dated 30.12.1996
passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation,
Azamgarh in Revision No. 251, Ram Badan vs. Ram
Murat and others is hereby quashed. It is further
ordered that the entire area of Khasra No. 60/3 (old)
shall be included in the petitioner's chak which
already carries the remainder area of the aforesaid
plot. Necessary adjustment to parties Chaks shall be
made by the Deputy Director of Consolidation. There
there shall be no order as to costs.

List of cases cited: -

## Text

146 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
shall be determined in the order mentioned
in the order of appointment."

12. It is apparent from the Rule(s) 7,
8 and 9 of the Regularization Rules of
2016 that a person can be considered in
cadre only from the date of regularization
and not prior to the said date. Further, the
observations and directions issued by this
Court vide judgment and order dated
25.01.2017 passed in the writ petition filed
by the petitioner are also not in support of
the case of the petitioner. Learned counsel
for the petitioner in support of his case has
also not placed any provision or rule or
judgment.

13. The Supreme Court in the case of
Registrar General of India & another
vs. V. Thippa Setty & others, (1998) 8
SCC 690, has held that the regularisation
should
be
prospective
and
not
retrospective so that seniority of those,
who are already in service, is not affected.
This judgement has been followed in the
case of Union of India and others vs.
Sheela Rani (2007) 15 SCC 230.
Reference may also be made to the case of
State of Haryana vs. Jasmer Singh
(1996) 11 SCC 77.

14. Appointment with retrospective
effect is normally not permissible. One of
the reasons being it will adversely affect
others, who have been appointed as per
Service Rules in the interregnum, in
matters of seniority, promotion etc. In a
case
of
regularization
of
service
retrospectivity will adversely affect such
rights of others who have already been
regularly appointed in the regular cadre as
per the Service Rules and are better
placed. It is with this object that the above
quoted Rules are made part of the
Regularization Rules of 2016. Rule 9 of
the Regularization Rules of 2016 contains
a stipulation that those regularized under
these Rules will be placed below those
appointed in accordance with service
Rules prior to them. The Rule makes a
valid distinction between two different
classes of employees, one which is regular
and other not so. There is a rationale basis
for such objective as also nexus with an
object, as referred above.

15. In view of the aforesaid facts, the
writ petition lacks merit and is hereby
dismissed. There shall be no order as to
costs.
----------
(2020)02ILR A146

ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 06.11.2019

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE J.J. MUNIR, J.

Writ B No. 1445 of 1997

Ram Badan ...Petitioner
Versus
The D.D.C. Azamgarh & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri R.N. Singh, Sri Karuna Srivastava, Sri
Mayank Krishna, Sri S. Chandel, Sri
Santosh
Kumar
Srivastava,
Sri
V.K.
Chandel, Sri R.C. Singh

Counsel for the Respondents:
S.C., Sri D.K. Pandey, Sri Devesh Kumar
Verma, Sri P.K.S. Paliwal, Sri R.B. Pal, Sri
Suresh Chandra Verma, Sri Imtiaz Ali

A. U.P. C&H Act-challenging-order-depriving the
petitioner-of
his
road
side-valuable
landinherited by him-without assigning any reasonunless-authorities left with no option-under a
compelling circumstance-in violation of settled
4 All. Ram Badan Vs. The D.D.C. Azamgarh & Ors.
147
legal principle-valuable land either to be excluded
from consolidation operations or-included in the chak
of the original chakholder-impugned order-illegal &
arbitrary-Petition Allowed.

B. Held, the added fact that a sector road now runs
through between those plots where the third
respondent claims his Abadi and old Khasra No. 60/3
that is the petitioner's original holding, occurrence of
even a slight prejudice to the third respondents, let
alone a compelling circumstance that may leave no
option with the Authorities but to deprive the
petitioner of some part of his valuable roadside land,
part of Khasra No. 60/3 (old), is a conclusion that
cannot be said to be a legitimate exercise of
discretion by the Consolidation Authorities, one way.
Here is a case where the Deputy Director of
Consolidation affirming the Settlement Officer of
Consolidation has deprived the petitioner of valuable
roadside land in violation of settled legal principles
that valuable roadside land is either to be excluded
from consolidation operations or included in the
Chak of that Chakholder, who held it as original
holding. This principle is to be departed from for very
compelling reasons that are not forthcoming in this
case. In the result this writ petition succeeds and is
allowed. The impugned order dated 30.12.1996
passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation,
Azamgarh in Revision No. 251, Ram Badan vs. Ram
Murat and others is hereby quashed. It is further
ordered that the entire area of Khasra No. 60/3 (old)
shall be included in the petitioner's chak which
already carries the remainder area of the aforesaid
plot. Necessary adjustment to parties Chaks shall be
made by the Deputy Director of Consolidation. There
there shall be no order as to costs.

List of cases cited: -

1. Ram Prasad vs. Deputy Director of
Consolidation, Allahabad and others, 2006
(100) RD 434

2. Ramadhar Singh and Another vs. Deputy
Director of Consolidation and others, 2009
(106) RD 772

3. Sanjay and Another vs. Deputy Director of
Consolidation, 2013 (121) RD 561

4. Smt. Uttama Devi @ Dayamati vs. Deputy
Director of Consolidation, Basti and others,
2002 (93) RD 239
5. Jagdish Sharma and others vs. Addl.
Collector (F&R)/D.D.C. and others, 2015 (128)
RD 646

6. Ram Shanker vs. Deputy Director of
Consolidation, Basti and others , 2006 (101) RD
247

7. C/M Baroda U.P Gramin Bank A-1 Civil Lines
Raebareli vs P.O Employees Provident Fund
(Delivered by Hon'ble J.J. Munir, J.)

1. Heard Sri R.C. Singh, learned
Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Santosh
Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the
petitioner,
learned
Standing
Counsel
appearing on behalf of respondent nos. 1
and 2 and Sri Suresh Chandra Verma,
learned counsel appearing for respondent
no. 3.

2. This writ petition is directed
against an order dated 30.12.1996, passed
by the Deputy Director of Consolidation,
Azamgarh in Revision No. 251 arising out
of proceedings under Section 20 of U.P.
Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953
(hereinafter referred to as 'the C.H. Act').
The case of petitioner is that he is Chak
holder no. 5, whereas respondent no. 3 is
Chak holder no. 210. It is claimed that the
said Chak was originally recorded in the
name of the petitioner's father which he
has inherited being his son and sole heir. It
is the petitioner's case that plot no. 60/3
ad-measuring 570 kari which is part of his
original holding, abuts the Azamgarh
Bilariyaganj Road and located at a
distance of 3 kms from the city of
Azamgarh. It is claimed to be a valuable
piece of land carrying a high market value.
The petitioner had been proposed three
Chaks by the Assistant Consolidation
Officer in the Provisional Consolidation
Scheme.
Lateron,
the
Consolidation
Officer by his order dated 06.05.1986
148 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
allotted two Chaks to the petitioner,
instead of three as proposed. One of those
Chaks included plot no. 60/3 to the extent
of an area of 149 links alone, as against his
original holding where the said plot bore
an area of 570 links. The other Chak
allotted to the petitioner comprised his
original holding in plot no. 19.

3. Aggrieved by the aforesaid orders
passed by the Consolidation Officer, the
petitioner
carried
an
Appeal
to
the
Settlement Officer of Consolidation who
dismissed it by a judgment and order dated
5th April, 1990. It requires to be clarified
here that another Appeal against the same
determination was lodged by the petitioner's
father, who was alive at that time, and both
these Appeals came to be decided by
different orders. The Appeal filed by the
petitioner's father was decided vide order
dated 15.03.1995. Both Appeals met the
same fate and were dismissed by the
Settlement Officer of Consolidation. The
petitioner filed three Revisions to the Deputy
Director of Consolidation, Azamgarh that
were numbered as Revision Nos. 251, 238
and 240. These Revisions were consolidated,
heard and decided by a common judgment
and order dated 30th December, 1996.
Revision Nos. 238 and 240 were partly
allowed but so far as Revision No. 251 (Ram
Badan Vs. Ram Murat & Others) was
concerned, it is the petitioner's case that the
same was dismissed, though the operative
portion of the order shows it to be partly
allowed. The success in Revision nos 238
and 240 led to restoration of some further
area for the petitioner on his original holding
in plot no. 60/3. This writ petition is
confined in its challenge to the judgment and
order passed by the Deputy Director of
Consolidation, rendered in Revision No. 251
and not the other revisions decided by the
said judgment.

4.

The
petitioner's
grievance
primarily appears to be about plot no. 60/3
where he has demonstrated before this
Court from the entries in C.H. Form 23
that he had an original holding of 570
links. It is pointed out by Sri R.C. Singh
learned Senior Advocate for the petitioner,
that in the second chak that includes the
petitioner's original holding, comprised of
plot no. 60/3, renumbered as plot no. 378,
he has been allotted a total area of 321
links alone as against the original holding
indicated above.

5. Sri Suresh Chandra Verma,
learned
counsel
for
the
contesting
respondents has disputed this submission
and has pointed out that another 134 links
have been allotted to the petitioner in plot
no. 60/3 (old) which is evident from the
order
passed
in
a
reference
dated
23.10.2003, a copy of which has been filed
by the petitioner as part of Annexure No.
SRA 2 appended to the supplementary
rejoinder affidavit dated 18th July 2019. A
perusal of the said order does show that an
additional 134 links have been added to
the petitioner's Chak by the Deputy
Director of Consolidation, vide his order
dated 23.10.2003 passed in reference no.
72 pending this writ petition.

6. Sri R.C. Singh has disputed this
submission to say that the aforesaid
additional area of land that was Bachat has
been shown which does not add to the total
area of his holding or restore his original
holding in plot no. 60/3 (old) to the
dimensions and location as it existed.
What is important to note is the fact that it
is the petitioner's case that the land in
dispute, that is to say plot no. 60/3, admeasuring 570 links is a valuable roadside
land wherefrom 137 links have been taken
away and given to the third respondent.
4 All. Ram Badan Vs. The D.D.C. Azamgarh & Ors.
149
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits
that roadside land of commercial value
which plot no. 60/3 certainly is, either
ought to be excluded from consolidation
operations altogether or the whole of it
should be included in the petitioner's
Chak. In this connection learned counsel
for the petitioner has referred to a circular
dated
26.05.1981,
issued
by
the
Consolidation Commissioner U.P, a copy
of which is on record as Annexure 6 to the
writ petition.

7.

Learned
counsel
for
the
respondent on the other hand says that the
137 links of plot no. 570 that have been
given to him are those that abut his Abadi
and lie in front of it. It is land appurtenant
to the third respondent's Abadi, where he
has his dwelling unit. It is on those
considerations that a relatively small area
of 137 links was taken away from the
petitioner's holding, and rightly so, by the
Deputy Director of Consolidation, in the
learned Counsel's submission.

8. Sri R.C. Singh, learned Senior
Advocate in support of the petitioner's
case has placed reliance upon a decision of
this Court in Ram Prasad vs. Deputy
Director of Consolidation, Allahabad
and others, 2006 (100) RD 434,where it
has been held:-

"5. In the present case, the
consolidation authorities while preparing
the consolidation record did not consider
the principles laid down under the
U.P.C.H. Act and illegally included the
land in dispute and allotted the same in the
Chak of Opposite Party No. 2 who has no
concern with the original holding of the
petitioner. The appeal preferred by the
petitioner against the allotment of his
original holding situated on the main road
to contesting Opposite Party No. 2,
illegally, the appellate authority passed an
order dated 9th December, 1999 strictly in
accordance with the principles governing
consolidation
scheme.
The
Deputy
Director of Consolidation erred in law in
holding that as no objection was filed by
the petitioner, the land in dispute situated
on the main road was rightly allotted to a
stranger. It was duty of the consolidation
authorities to exclude the land situated on
the main road and of commercial value
from the consolidation operation. Land in
dispute was wrongly included in the
consolidation scheme. In any case this
should have been allotted to the original
tenure-holder, but it was wrongly allotted
in favour of contesting Opposite Party No.
2 who has no concern with the land in
dispute and has evil eyes on the land of the
petitioner.
The
Settlement
Officer,
Consolidation on appeal rightly excluded
the land in dispute from the consolidation
scheme as a result of which land in dispute
was allowed to be continued With the
petitioner who is original tenure-holder.
The order passed by the Settlement
Officer, Consolidation was strictly passed
in accordance with the Government order
dated 26th May, 1981 which is part of the
consolidation scheme and was issued
under the provision of the U.P.C.H. Act.
Deputy Director of Consolidation erred in
law in reversing the order of the
Settlement Officer, Consolidation Without
considering the Government Order dated
26th May, 1981."

9. Learned Senior Counsel appearing
on behalf of the petitioner has also placed
reliance upon a decision of this Court in
Ramadhar Singh and Another vs.
Deputy Director of Consolidation and
others, 2009 (106) RD 772, where it has
been held:
150 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

"7.......There cannot be any dispute
that a tenure holder is entitled to have his chak
on his plot, which is adjoining to the road. The
Consolidation Officer allowed the objection of
respondent No. 3 and allotted him plot No. 45,
which was taken out by the Settlement Officer
Consolidation without giving any reason. The
Deputy Director of Consolidation has rightly
taken the view that the respondent No. 3 could
not have been removed from his chak at plot
No. 45. There was sufficient justification for
allowing the chak of respondents No. 3 and 4
adjoining to each other, they being husband and
wife. The submission of the petitioner that the
case of the petitioner was not considered by the
Deputy Director of Consolidation, is not correct.
It was the petitioners who were allotted plot No.
45 by the Settlement Officer Consolidation. The
Deputy Director of Consolidation held that there
was no reason for removing the chak of the
respondent No. 3 from plot No. 45 which was
adjoining the road. The above reason was the
basis of the order of the Deputy Director of
Consolidation. From the order of the Settlement
Officer Consolidation, it is clear that the
Settlement Officer Consolidation did not give
any reason for removing the chak of the
respondent No. 3 from plot No. 45. The Deputy
Director of Consolidation emphasising on the
above fact, has rightly allowed the revision. The
respondents in their affidavit have also brought
on record a site plan of different plots which
were original holdings of the parties and their
allotment which site plan matches: with the
chak map filed by the petitioner as Annexure-4.
A perusal of the chak map and site plan
indicates that plots No. 1520, 45, 37, 38, 39, 45
were the plots on the chak-road. The plot No. 45
was the only plot which was given to the
respondent No. 3 which was on the chakroad...."

10. To the same end, reliance has
been placed on behalf of the petitioner on
a more recent decision in Sanjay and
Another
vs.
Deputy
Director
of
Consolidation, 2013 (121) RD 561, where
the question of priority in allotment of a
roadside land has been dealt with by this
Court thus:

10. So far as the arguments of
the counsel for the petitioners that findings
recorded by Consolidation Officer and
Settlement Officer Consolidation have not
been considered by Deputy Director of
Consolidation,
is
concerned,
the
Consolidation Officer and Settlement of
Consolidation have illegally failed to
notice the grievances and arguments of
Pankaj that he was deprived from the
roadside land. His arguments has been
meeted
out
by
Settlement
Officer,
Consolidation, by holding that plot no. 323
is adjacent to the roadside and his chak on
plot no. 324 is adjacent to plot no. 323.
The Settlement Officer, Consolidation has
illegally failed to notice that plot no. 323
was already allotted in the chaks of the
other persons, as such, Pankaj will not get
frontage on the roadside as his chak on
plot no. 324 was in the back side. The
Consolidation Commissioner, U.P. has
issued a Circular to allot roadside land to
the original tenure holder. This Court has
also consistently held that roadside land
has to be allotted to original the tenure
holder. The order of Settlement Officer
Consolidation and Consolidation Officer
were contradictory to the law laid down by
this
Court
as
well
as
circular
of
Consolidation Commissioner U.P. The
findings of the Consolidation Officer and
Settlement Officer, Consolidation were not
worth reliable by the Deputy Director of
Consolidation.

11. Sri Suresh Chandra Verma,
learned counsel appearing on behalf of
respondent No. 3 has reposed faith in the
decision of this Court in Smt. Uttama
4 All. Ram Badan Vs. The D.D.C. Azamgarh & Ors.
151
Devi @ Dayamati vs. Deputy Director of
Consolidation, Basti and others, 2002
(93) RD 239, where it has been held:

6. So far as the demand of Smt.
Uttama Devi is concerned, that is based on
the Government Order, referred to above. The
said Government Order is nothing but a
guideline for allotment, which has got no
statutory force nor the provisions of the Act,
particularly Section 19, stand amended by the
said order. Major portion of the plot No. 30,
i.e., 3 bighas 18 biswas and 18 biswansis, has
already been allotted to the petitioner,
therefore, in my opinion the judgment and
order passed by the Deputy Director of
Consolidation does not suffer from any
infirmity or illegality. He has recorded cogent
reasons for the adjustment made by him in the
chaks of the parties. He has done justice
between
the
parties
while
making
allotment/adjustment in the chaks of the
parties.

12. Learned counsel for the respondent
no. 3 has placed further reliance upon a
decision of this Court in Jagdish Sharma and
others vs. Addl. Collector (F&R)/D.D.C.
and others, 2015 (128) RD 646. He has
referred to paragraph 10 of the report, where it
has been held:

10.
I
have
considered
the
arguments of the counsel for the parties
and examined the record. A perusal of
objection of Sharejang shows that he was
claiming for change in his second chak
and for allotment of part of its valuation
near his original holdings of plot 8950 and
remaining
valuation
on his
original
holding of plot 1518. In the objection, the
petitioner was not impleaded as party nor
allotment made to him on plot 1517/3 was
challenged. Consolidation Officer without
considering possibility for allotment of
chak to Sharejang on plot 1518, has
disturbed the chak of the petitioner. By
order of Consolidation Officer, Sharejang
was allotted second chak on plots 1517/3
(area 1-2-5 bigha), 1635 (area 0-1-9
bigha), 1636 (area 0-13-4 bigha) and
1637/2 (area 0-5-10 bigha) (total area 112-8 bigha). Sharejang was satisfied and
did not file any appeal. By the order of
Deputy Director of Consolidation, area of
chak of Sharejang on plot 1517/3 has been
exceeded 2 bigha. Deputy Director of
Consolidation has failed to examine
original
demand
of
Sharejang
and
entertained a totally new demand in
revision although in chak carvation matter,
a party should not allowed to change his
original demand.

13. Further reliance has been placed
by learned counsel for the third respondent
on a decision of this Court in Ram
Shanker
vs.
Deputy
Director
of
Consolidation, Basti and others , 2006
(101) RD 247. He has emphasized what
was held in Ram Shanker (supra) in
paragraph 5 of the report which reads thus:

5.
Consolidation
proceeding
settles dispute for generations to come and
in case a person is allotted a chak in front
of others residential house, it may cause
great
and
irreparable
injury
and
inconvenience to both the parties for
decades to come. Therefore, Deputy
Director of Consolidation being last Court
of consolidation proceeding is bound to
consider all grievances of the parties raised
before him as well as to consider whether
principle of allotment of chaks to the
parties
including
private
source
of
irrigation was followed or not..

14. This Court has keenly considered
the submissions advanced on both sides.
152 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
The Court has also been taken through the
map, drawn up post consolidation, which
shows that new khasra nos. 369, 370 and
378 that are carved out of old no. 60/3,
including some part of Gaon Sabha land,
do lie abutting the highway. It is indeed,
valuable land. Some part of it does include
that land which was Gaon Sabha land
where the rights of the third respondent
could be adjusted, without any objection
from the petitioner. However, so far as
land that was originally part of plot no.
60/3 is concerned, it is certainly valuable
and roadside land.

15. The consensus of principle that
emerges from the decisions in Ram
Prasad (supra), Ramadhar Singh (supra)
and Sanjay and another (supra) is that
valuable roadside land that is the original
holding of a tenure holder, is to be
declared chak out or allotted to him as part
of his Chak, unless it be imperative on
account of some compelling circumstances
that may require some marginal departure
from the Rule. There is no finding
recorded by the Deputy Director of
Consolidation or the Settlement Officer
that allotment of the entire area of Khasra
No. 60/3 (old) to the petitioner, that is part
of the petitioner's original holding lies in
front of the third respondent's Abadi and
would cause the third respondent some
great inconvenience or irreparable injury
as spoken of in the decision of this Court
in Ram Shanker (supra). The remark of
the Deputy Director of Consolidation that
though it is not appropriate to include any
part of this plot in the third respondent's
chak as it is not part of his original
holding, considering his Abadi, the same
may not be disturbed as ordered by the
Settlement Officer of Consolidation, is
flawed. To this, is added a remark that,
therefore, it would not be proper to remove
the part of the plot in dispute included in
the Chak of the third respondent. For one,
it is not reason enough to deprive the
petitioner of a substantial part of his
valuable roadside land in favour of the
third respondent. Moreover, a look at the
confirmed consolidation map shows that
between one part of old Khasra No. 60/3
(now renumbered as 369) and included in
the third respondent's chak and the third
respondent's Abadi, there is a sector road
running through. This confirmed map is on
record as part of Annexure No. SRA-1 to
the supplementary rejoinder affidavit dated
18th July, 2019 filed on behalf of the
petitioner. There is no dispute about this.

17. The added fact that a sector road
now runs through between those plots where
the third respondent claims his Abadi and old
Khasra No. 60/3 that is the petitioner's
original holding, occurrence of even a slight
prejudice to the third respondents, let alone a
compelling circumstance that may leave no
option with the Authorities but to deprive the
petitioner of some part of his valuable
roadside land, part of Khasra No. 60/3 (old),
is a conclusion that cannot be said to be a
legitimate exercise of discretion by the
Consolidation Authorities, one way. Here is a
case
where
the
Deputy
Director
of
Consolidation
affirming
the
Settlement
Officer of Consolidation has deprived the
petitioner of valuable roadside land in
violation of settled legal principles that
valuable roadside land is either to be excluded
from consolidation operations or included in
the Chak of that Chakholder, who held it as
original holding. This principle is to be
departed from for very compelling reasons
that are not forthcoming in this case.

18. In the result this writ petition
succeeds and is allowed. The impugned
order dated 30.12.1996 passed by the
2 All. Bangali Vs. Asst. Director of Consolidation Ghazipur & Ors.
153
Deputy
Director
of
Consolidation,
Azamgarh in Revision No. 251, Ram
Badan vs. Ram Murat and others is hereby
quashed. It is further ordered that the
entire area of Khasra No. 60/3 (old) shall
be included in the petitioner's chak which
already carries the remainder area of the
aforesaid plot. Necessary adjustment to
parties Chaks shall be made by the Deputy
Director of Consolidation. There there
shall be no order as to costs.
----------
(2020)02ILR A153

ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 16.11.2019

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE J.J. MUNIR, J.

Writ B No. 7677 of 1987

Bangali ...Petitioner
Versus
Asst. Director Consolidation Ghazipur &
Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri R.S. Misra, Sri Arun Kumar, Sri R.P. Mishra

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri T.D. Singh, Sri Abhishek Kumar, Sri
Jagdish Lal, Sri Kirtika Pande, S.C.,
Santosh Kumar Singh, Sri T.D. Singh

A. U.P C&H Act-Challenging-revisional order-
completely altering and reducing-area of
petitioner's chak-manifestly illegal-as it makescryptic redetermination of chaks-w/o assigning
reasons-depriving
petitioner-of
his
original
holdings-Petition Allowed.

B. Held, this Court does not intend to say that
in appropriate circumstances, the subordinate
Authorities with the permission of the Director
of Consolidation or the Deputy Director of
Consolidation cannot reduce the area beyond 25%
or the Deputy Director cannot in fit cases exercise
that power. However, before that power to reduce
the area beyond 25% is exercised, even by the
Deputy Director, there must be valid reasons
assigned to take this drastic step. In this case, no
such reasons have been assigned. It is the last limb
of the submissions of Sri Arun Kumar, learned
counsel for the petitioner that the area of Chak
holder No. 714 has been increased from 6.96 acres
to 9.24 acres whereas his area has been reduced
from 10.88 acres to 7.10 acres. It is a very
inequitable adjustment of Chaks, done by the
Deputy Director of Consolidation. This submission is
not required to be gone into by this Court, in view of
what has already been said above. The submission
of Sri Santosh Kumar Singh on the other hand that
no prejudice to the petitioner has been caused,
inasmuch as, he has been provided a Chak that is
not far flung from his original holding, does not
appeal to this Court for reasons of the indicated
prejudice that has been caused to the petitioner. In
the result, this writ petition succeeds and his
allowed. The impugned order dated 09.04.1987
passed by the Assistant Director of Consolidation,
Ghazipur Camp Office Bareilly in Revision No. 362 is
hereby quashed. The Revision shall stand restored
to
the
file
of
the
concerned
Assistant
Director/Deputy Director of Consolidation, who will
determine it afresh after hearing both parties in
accordance with law. Both parties will appear before
the
District
Deputy
Director
of
Consolidation/Collector, Ballia on 09.12.2019.

List of case cited: -

1. Asbaran vs. DDC and another, 1986 RD 430

2. Shri Nath vs. D.D.C., Sultanpur reported in
1986 RD 209

3. Sheo Pal vs. Basu Deo & others, 2017 (135) RD 335

4. Union of India v. Mohan Lal Capoor
MANU/SC/0405/1973 : (1973) 2 SCC 836

5. Rajvinder Singh vs. Deputy Director of
Consolidation, 2014 (123) RD 76

6. Arjun vs. Deputy Director of Consolidation
Faizabad and another, 2015 (129) RD 205

7. Gulab Chandra vs. DDC, 2019 (143) RD 783