# Ram Udit v. D.D.C. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2014) 3 ILRA 1085
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2014-09-24
- **Case number:** Consolidation No. 5001 of 1983
- **Bench:** Sudhir Agarwal
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/ram-udit-v-d-d-c-ors-43090
- **Pages:** 10

## Headnote

U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act 1953Section-48-Scope of interference with
finding
of
facts
by
D.D.C.-chak
allotment-against
proposal
by
ACOobjection filed-on ground having original
holding just adjacent to abadi having
more potential value-while proposed
chak on usar "Barren" land-C.O. And SOC
recorded findings in favor of petitionerD.D.C.
Ignoring
the
principle
of
allotment of chak under section 19 as
well as the objections-arbitrary instead
of doing justice in accordance with lawcommitted error-ignoring fundamental
right of people 300 A of constitutionquashed with direction to decide revision
within 2 month.

Held: Para-33-
Applying the above principles of law
relating to allotment of chak and also
statutory provision, this Court finds that
specific
objection
was
taken
by
petitioner regarding nature of land that
it mostly comprised of Usar and further
that original plot was near Abadi and
main road, yet he has been allotted a
chak at different place, but for rejecting
his objection and setting aside the
orders
passed
by
subordinate
authorities, the DDC has not at all looked
into this objection and has gone to
decide the matter only on the ground
that since initially objection was raised
by petitioner and not by others, against
the
proposed
allotment
of
Chak,
therefore,
scheme
proposed
initially
should be accepted. He has followed a
majoritarian way. He has failed to
consider that right of objection against
allotment of Chak has been conferred
upon aggrieved tenure holder by the
statute. If such objection has been
made, raising valid and relevant issue(s),
it
is
incumbent
upon
consolidation
authorities to decide the same and those
issues cannot be bye-passed or ignored
or omitted on irrelevant considerations,
as has been done by DDC in the case in
hand. The location of chak, its value, are
all interconnected issues. The same
cannot
be
ignored
for
fanciful
conjectures and unmindful whims of
consolidation authorities. It shows mere
arbitrary act on their part, instead of an
attempt to decide the matter by doing
justice in accordance with law with the
poor
tenure
holder
whose
entire
livelihood depends on it. If a chak is
altered by another one which is much
inferior for various reasons, then what
he initially held, it amounts to deprives
him of his valuable property, by giving
another land which is not equivalent as
far as possible, but is apparently inferior
in various ways and thereby he would
stand deprived of his right to property
affecting his constitutional right under
Article
14 read with 300A of the
Constitution
of
India.
Consolidation
authorities are therefore, bound to act
more cautiously and objectively.

Case Law discussed:
1086 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
(1978) 3 SCC 172; AIR 1975 All 126; 1981
SCC (Suppl.) 73; (1994) Supp (2) SCC 198;
(1996) 2 SCC 270; 2000 (2) SCC 523; 2003
(94) RD 382; (2014) 5 SCC 707; 1985 AWC
604 All. 1982 LLJ 42; 1985 LLJ 330; 1988 (6)
LCD 453.

## Text

3 All]. Ram Udit Vs. D.D.C. & Ors.
1085

16. In view of the above, the petition
is allowed.

17. Order dated 7.7.2011 passed by
Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Court No.1 in complaint case No.897 of
2011 titled 'Manju Gupta Vs. Chhote Lal
Singh' is hereby quashed.
--------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 24.09.2014

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE SUDHIR AGARWAL, J.

Consolidation No. 5001 of 1983

Ram Udit ...Petitioner
Versus
D.D.C. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri R.S. Pandey

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Sri A.S. Chaudhary, Sri P.N. Gupta
Sri R.A. Chaudhary

U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act 1953Section-48-Scope of interference with
finding
of
facts
by
D.D.C.-chak
allotment-against
proposal
by
ACOobjection filed-on ground having original
holding just adjacent to abadi having
more potential value-while proposed
chak on usar "Barren" land-C.O. And SOC
recorded findings in favor of petitionerD.D.C.
Ignoring
the
principle
of
allotment of chak under section 19 as
well as the objections-arbitrary instead
of doing justice in accordance with lawcommitted error-ignoring fundamental
right of people 300 A of constitutionquashed with direction to decide revision
within 2 month.

Held: Para-33-
Applying the above principles of law
relating to allotment of chak and also
statutory provision, this Court finds that
specific
objection
was
taken
by
petitioner regarding nature of land that
it mostly comprised of Usar and further
that original plot was near Abadi and
main road, yet he has been allotted a
chak at different place, but for rejecting
his objection and setting aside the
orders
passed
by
subordinate
authorities, the DDC has not at all looked
into this objection and has gone to
decide the matter only on the ground
that since initially objection was raised
by petitioner and not by others, against
the
proposed
allotment
of
Chak,
therefore,
scheme
proposed
initially
should be accepted. He has followed a
majoritarian way. He has failed to
consider that right of objection against
allotment of Chak has been conferred
upon aggrieved tenure holder by the
statute. If such objection has been
made, raising valid and relevant issue(s),
it
is
incumbent
upon
consolidation
authorities to decide the same and those
issues cannot be bye-passed or ignored
or omitted on irrelevant considerations,
as has been done by DDC in the case in
hand. The location of chak, its value, are
all interconnected issues. The same
cannot
be
ignored
for
fanciful
conjectures and unmindful whims of
consolidation authorities. It shows mere
arbitrary act on their part, instead of an
attempt to decide the matter by doing
justice in accordance with law with the
poor
tenure
holder
whose
entire
livelihood depends on it. If a chak is
altered by another one which is much
inferior for various reasons, then what
he initially held, it amounts to deprives
him of his valuable property, by giving
another land which is not equivalent as
far as possible, but is apparently inferior
in various ways and thereby he would
stand deprived of his right to property
affecting his constitutional right under
Article
14 read with 300A of the
Constitution
of
India.
Consolidation
authorities are therefore, bound to act
more cautiously and objectively.

Case Law discussed:
1086 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
(1978) 3 SCC 172; AIR 1975 All 126; 1981
SCC (Suppl.) 73; (1994) Supp (2) SCC 198;
(1996) 2 SCC 270; 2000 (2) SCC 523; 2003
(94) RD 382; (2014) 5 SCC 707; 1985 AWC
604 All. 1982 LLJ 42; 1985 LLJ 330; 1988 (6)
LCD 453.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Sudhir Agarwal, J.)

1. This writ petition under Article 226
of Constitution of India has arisen from the
judgment and order dated 28th July 1983
(Annexure-3 to the writ petition) passed by
Deputy Director of Consolidation, Faizabad
(hereinafter referred to as "DDC") in
Revision no. 1443 under Section 48 of U.P.
Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953
(hereinafter referred to as "Act 1953"),
whereby it has allowed revision and setting
aside the orders dated 21.12.1982 of
Consolidation Officer (for short "C.O.") and
dated 29.01.1983 passed by Settlement
Officer
of
Consolidation
(For
short
"S.O.C."), has upheld the consolidation plan
prepared by Assistant Consolidation Officer
(hereinafter referred to as "ACO") in respect
of plots no. 188, 164, 41, 158, 223, 71, 228,
153, 139 and 217.

2. The petitioner initially had two
plots in Sector 4, one numbered as 50,
area 2 Bighas 9 Biswas and 10 Biswansi
and another number 30 area 2 Bighas, 2
Biswas and 4 Biswansi. It is said that plot
no. 50 was adjacent to Abadi, close to
main road. In consolidation proceedings,
ACO alloted Chak No. 164 to petitioner
which comprises of plots no. 48/M
measuring 1 Biswa, 40/2M measuring 8/
biswa 10 biswansi 40/2M measuring 1
Biswa 10 biswansi, 40/3M measuring 5
biswa, 46/2M measuring 10 Biswa 12
biswansi, 46/1 measuring 2 Bigha and 17
Biswa and plot no. 42/M measuring 4
Biswa 4 Biswansi. The petitioner filed
objection that Chak No. 164 consists of
Usar land and none of original plots
formed part thereof, besides the fact that
plot no. 50 of petitioner was near Abadi
and adjacent to main road and all these
things have been ignored. The C.O. vide
order dated 21.12.1982 accepted the
objection and directed to divide Sector 4 in
two sub-sectors and therefrom plots no. 50
and 30 were allotted to petitioner. One Ram
Saran who was originally alloted Chak No.
198 on plots no. 50 and 51 got affected by
the said order which had resulted in
reducing the area of Chak No. 198 and
allotting original plot no. 50 therefrom to
the petitioner. He however, did not prefer
any appeal. Instead, petitioner filed appeal
under Section 21(2) before SOC. However,
there came five other appeals, i.e. no. 214,
Ram Udit Vs. Gaon Sabha; 216, Abhay Raj
Vs. Sukhraji; 217, Smt. Sukhraji Vs. Abhay
Raj; 219, Udai Bhan Vs. Saran and 221,
Mati Ram Vs. Avtar, which included the
dispute relating to plots and chaks in
dispute. Therefore, all were heard together
along with petitioner's appeal no. 213 and
decided vide order dated 29.01.1983.
Appeal No. 221 was dismissed. Appeal No.
219 was partly allowed and rest were
allowed. SOC made respective amendments
in the light of the directions contained in the
last but one penultimate paragraph of the
order, which would be discussed at a later
stage, if necessity so arises.

3.

Aggrieved
thereby,
three
revisions were filed, being Revision No.
1358-Ram Laut Vs. State and others,
1443-Udai Bhan Vs. Ram Udit and others
and 1514 Ram Awadh Vs. Saran and
others, before DDC. All have been
collectively decided by impugned order
dated 28.07.1983.

4. Revisional Court after discussing
entire things and having spot inspection
3 All]. Ram Udit Vs. D.D.C. & Ors.
1087
found that initial allotment made by ACO
did satisfy almost all the parties, except
one i.e. the petitioner whereas alteration
made by SOC resulted in colossal dispute
amongst various parties. Therefore, it
would be appropriate to restore the
original plan and set aside the amendment
as directed by C.O. And SOC and hence,
both the orders were set aside.

5. Learned counsel for petitioner
contended that principles for allotment of
Chaks to be followed in accordance with
Section 19 of Act 1953 have not been
adhered to. He has further contended that
Rule 25 has not been complied with. The
order by revisional authority is patently
illegal as it has not considered grievance
of petitioner that one of his plots was near
Abadi and adjacent to main road. While
allotting a Chak to petitioner, this aspect
ought to have been considered. Besides,
alleged chak constituted mostly Usar land
which is large part, compared to what the
petitioner's
land
was.
He
further
contended that in absence of any finding
recorded by DDC that there was any
patent error or violation of principles of
natural justice or otherwise illegality, it
was not open to revisional authority to
exercise jurisdiction under Section 48 and
here he has committed manifest error,
thereby exceeded his jurisdiction.

6. Sri A.S. Chaudhary who has put
in appearance on behalf of respondent
no.14 also supported the stand taken by
petitioner in respect of the grounds on
which impugned order passed by DDC
has been challenged.

7. Respondents no.1 and 2 are
represented by learned Standing Counsel
while none has appeared on behalf of
other respondents.

8. It is worthy to notice that vide
order dated 20.2.1994, service of notice
upon respondents no. 6, 9, 10, 11 and 13
was deemed sufficient under Chapter 8
rule 12 of High Court Rules. Rest of the
respondents were already represented
through their respective counsel.

9. The contentions advanced above
gives rise to two issues:

(i) Whether DDC rightly interfered
with the impugned order and power
exercised by him is within four corners of
Section 48 of Act 1953 ?

(ii)Whether in allotment of Chaks to
the petitioner relevant principles had been
followed and grievance of petitioner had
been attended or not?

10. The Scheme of the statute
contemplates a tentative plan, inviting
objection from stake-holder, i.e. tenure
holder, and, after considering the same,
finalization of plan, i.e., allotment of
Chaks. Thereagainst appellate power has
been conferred upon SOC under Section
21(2) of Act 1953. The power which is
exercised by DDC, is termed "Revision
and reference" under Section 48 of Act,
1953.

11. The original Section 48, as
enacted initially, read as under:

"48.
Revision.-
Director
of
Consolidation may call for the record of
any case if the Officer (other than the
Arbitrator) by whom the case was decided
appears to have exercised a jurisdiction
not vested in him by law or to have failed
to exercise jurisdiction so vested, or to
have acted in the exercise of his
jurisdiction illegally or with substantial
1088 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
irregularity and may pass such orders in
the case as it thinks fit."

12. It was amended by substitution
by U.P. Act No. 24 of 1956 as under:

"48.
Powers
of
Director
of
Consolidation to call for records and to
revise
orders.-
The
Director
of
Consolidation may call for the record of any
case or proceeding if the Officer (other than
the Arbitrator) by whom the case was
decided or proceeding taken appears to have
exercised jurisdiction not vested in him by
law or to have failed to exercise jurisdiction
so vested, or to have acted in the exercise of
his jurisdiction illegally or with substantial
irregularity and may pass such orders in the
case as it thinks fit." (amendment in bold)

13. Within a short period, it was
again amended by U.P. Amendment Act
No.38 of 1958 as under:

"48. Revision.- The Director of
Consolidation may call for the record of
any case decided or proceedings taken,
where he is of opinion that a Deputy
Director, Consolidation has -

(i) exercised jurisdiction not vested
in him in law, or

(ii) failed to exercise jurisdiction
vested in him, or

(iii) acted in the exercise of his
jurisdiction illegally or with substantial
irregularity, and as a result of which,
substantial injustice appears to have been
caused to a tenure-holder and he may4,
after affording reasonable opportunity of
hearing to the parties concerned, pass
such order in the case or proceeding as he
thinks fit." (amendment in bold)

14. Section 48 underwent a minor
amendment vide Section 39 of U.P.
(Amendment) Act No. VIII of 1963. An
Explanation was added by Act No. 4 of
1969 with retrospective effect. Major
amendment came to be made by U.P. Act
No. 20 of 1982 inasmuch as, in sub
section(1) the words "other than an
interlocutory order" were inserted w.e.f.
10.11.1980. The explanation inserted in
1969 was re-numbered as Explanation-(1)
by Act No. 20 of 1982 w.e.f. 10.11.1980
and then Explanation(2) was added w.e.f.
10.11.1980.

15. Presently, Section 48 reads as
under:

"48. Revision and reference.-(1) The
Director of Consolidation may call for
and examine the record of any case
decided or proceedings taken by any
subordinate authority for the purpose of
satisfying himself as to the regularity of
the proceedings; or as to the correctness,
legality or propriety of any order [other
than interlocutory order] passed by such
authority in the case of proceedings and
may, after allowing the parties concerned
an opportunity of being heard, make such
order in the case of proceedings as he
thinks fit.

(2) Powers under Sub-section (1)
may be exercised by the Director of
Consolidation also on a reference under
Sub-section (3).

(3) Any authority subordinate to the
Director of Consolidation may, after
allowing
the
parties
concerned
an
opportunity of being heard, refer the
record of any case or proceedings to the
Director of Consolidation for action under
subsection (1).
3 All]. Ram Udit Vs. D.D.C. & Ors.
1089

Explanation (1) - For the purposes of
this
section,
Settlement
Officer,
Consolidation, Consolidation Officers,
Assistant
Consolidation
Officers,
Consolidator and Consolidation Lekhpals
shall be subordinate to the Director of
Consolidation.

Explanation (2). For the purpose of
this section the expression 'interlocutory
order' in relation to a case or proceedings,
means such order deciding any matter
arising in such case or proceeding or
collateral thereto as does not have the
effect of finally disposing of such case or
proceeding.

Explanation (3).- The power under
this section to examine the correctness,
legality or propriety of any order includes
the power to examine any finding,
whether of fact or law, recorded by any
subordinate authority, and also includes
the power to re-appreciate any oral or
documentary evidence." (emphasis added)

16. Section 48 as it was initially
enacted came to be considered in Sher
Singh (dead) Vs. Joint Director of
Consolidation and others (1978) 3 SCC
172. The Court observed that a bare
reading show that it is pari materia with
Section
115
CPC
which
confines
revisional jurisdiction of High Court to
cases of illegal or irregular exercise or
non exercise or illegal assumption of
jurisdiction by subordinate Courts. If a
subordinate court is found to possess the
jurisdiction to decide a matter, it cannot
be said to exercise it illegally or with'
material irregularity even it it decides the
matter wrongly. Relying on the cases
interpreting Section 115 CPC, the Court
held that whatever revisional jurisdiction
was available to High Court under Section
115, the same was the scope of revisional
jurisdiction of DDC under Section 48 and
it has no jurisdiction to go into errors of
facts. The Court said that an erroneous
decision on a question of fact or of law
reached by subordinate court which has
no relation to question of jurisdiction of
that court, cannot be corrected by High
Court under Section 115 CPC and same
would apply to DDC under Section 48.
The
Court
further
observed
that
consolidation authorities subordinate to
Joint Director possess plenary jurisdiction
and competence to go into the question of
correctness or otherwise of entries in
revenue records. If there are concurrent
findings of fact of two Courts, which do
not leave any ground, as observed above,
in revisional jurisdiction, interference by
Joint Director of Consolidation would not
be competent. In para 16 of the
judgement, the Court said :

" Thus the subordinate Consolidation
authorities not having acted illegally in
exercising their jurisdiction, the Joint
Director of Consolidation was not competent
to interfere with their decisions."

17. Section 48 as amended in 1963
then came to be considered in Ramakant
Singh
Vs.
Deputy
Director
of
Consolidation, U.P. and others AIR 1975
All 126 but therein the Court while
considering Section 48(1), to the question,
whether
Deputy
Director
of
Consolidation, once has called for record,
is it incumbent on him to decide the
matter on merit or it can decline and
dismiss the revision on any technical
ground like lack of impleadment of proper
party etc.

18. Amended section 48 in 1963,
then came to be considered in Shanti
1090 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Prakash Gupta Vs. DDC 1981 SCC (Suppl)
73. Therein the Court observed that Section
48 as then stood, vide amendment of 1963,
was wider than Section 115 CPC. However,
it proceeded to hold that Director should not
lightly interfere with discretion of C.O.
unless the order sought to be reversed is
palpably erroneous or likely to cause
miscarriage of justice. To the same effect
and
imposing
similar
restriction,
observations were made in Ram Dular Vs.
Dy. Director of Consolidation (1994)
Supp(2)SCC 198 as under:

" It is clear that the Director had power
to satisfy himself as to the legality of the
proceedings or as to the correctness of the
proceedings or correctness, legality or
propriety
of
any
order
other
than
interlocutory order passed by the authorities
under the Act. But in considering the
correctness, legality or propriety of the
order or correctness of the proceedings or
regularity thereof it cannot assume to itself
the jurisdiction of the original authority as a
fact-finding authority by appreciating for
itself of those facts de novo. It has to
consider whether the legally admissible
evidence had not been considered by the
authorities in recording a finding of fact or
law or the conclusion reached by it is based
on no evidence, any patent illegality or
impropriety had been committed or there
was any procedural irregularity, which goes
to the root of the matter, had been
committed in recording the order or
finding."

19. A slight different observation
came to be made in Preetam Singh Vs.
Assistant Director of Consolidation and
others (1996) 2 SCC 270 where the Court
said:

"When the matter was in revision
before
the
Assistant
director
(Consolidation), he had the entire matter
before him and his jurisdiction was
unfettered. While in seisin of the matter in
his revisional jurisdiction, he was in
complete control and in position to test
the correctness of the order made by the
Settlement
Officer
(Consolidation)
effecting remand. In other words, in
exercise of revisional jurisdiction the
Assistant Director (Consolidation) could
examine the finding recorded by the
Settlement Officer as to the abandonment
of the land in dispute by those tenants
who had been recorded at the crucial time
in the Khasra of 1359 Fasli. That power
as a superior court the Assistant Director
(Consolidation) had, even if the remand
order of the Settlement Officer had not
been specifically put to challenge in
separate and independent proceedings. It
is noteworthy that the Court of the
Assistant Director (Consolidation) is a
court of revisional jurisdiction otherwise
having suo moto power to correct any
order of the subordinate officer. In this
situation
the
Assistant
Director
(Consolidation) should not have felt
fettered in doing complete justice between
the parties when the entire matter was
before him. The war of legalistics fought
in the High Court was of no material
benefit to the appellants. A decision on
merit covering the entire controversy was
due
from
the
Assistant
Director
(Consolidation).
(para
-6)
(emphasis
added)

20. Yet in Ram Avtar Vs. Ram
Dhani, AIR 1997 SC 107, the Court, in
para 8, observed:

"This Court has repeatedly pointed
out that howsoever wide the power under
statutory revision may be in contrast to
Section 115 of the Code of Civil
3 All]. Ram Udit Vs. D.D.C. & Ors.
1091
Procedure, still while exercising that
power the authority concerned cannot act
as a Court of appeal so as to appreciate
the evidence on record for recording
findings on question of fact."

21. These observations again put the
things in the shape bringing the scope of
jurisdiction under Section 48 nearer to
jurisdiction as contained in Section 115
CPC.

22. Section 48(1) as it stood before
its amendment in 1963 and subsequent
thereto, both came to be noticed in
Sheshmani and another vs. The Deputy
Director of Consolidation, District Basti,
U.P.
and
others
2000(2)SCC
523.
Referring to earlier decision in Sher Singh
Vs. Joint Director of Consolidation
(supra) and Ram Dular Vs. DDC (supra)
and the intervening amendment, the Court
followed the observations made in Ram
Dular, as noticed above and then upheld
the order passed by DDC holding that
orders of CO and Additional Settlement
Consolidation Officer were against settled
principles of law, therefore, DDC was
justified in exercise of revisional power,
for coming to a different conclusion.

23. It is in these circumstances,
Legislature
intervened
by
inserting
Explanation-3, by U.P. Act No. 3 of 2002,
giving effect from 10.11.1980 but in
Karan Singh Vs. DDC 2003(94)RD 382
this Court said that even after addition of
Explanation-3, DDC cannot substitute its
own finding in place of subordinate
authorities.

24. Recent decision in Jagdamba
Prasad Vs. Kripa Shankar (2014) 5 SCC
707 which has also considered Section 48
as amended in 1963, in para 15, following
the earlier decision in Sher Singh Vs.
Joint Director of Consolidation (supra) it
has said :

"15. According to the legal principle
laid down by this Court in the case
mentioned above, the power of the
Revisional Authority under Section 48 of
the Act only extends to ascertaining
whether the subordinate courts have
exceeded their jurisdiction in coming to
the conclusion. Therefore, if the Original
and Appellate Authorities are within their
jurisdiction, the Revisional Authority
cannot exceed its jurisdiction to come to a
contrary conclusion by admitting new
facts either in the form of documents or
otherwise, to come to the conclusion.
Therefore, we answer point no. 1 in
favour of the appellants by holding that
the Revisional Authority exceeded its
jurisdiction under Section 48 of the Act
by admitting documents at revision stage
and
altering
the
decision
of
the
subordinate courts."

25. It is thus difficult to observe that
Explanation III to Section 48 has brought
the scope of revision at par with the
appellate jurisdiction so as to assess the
evidence on pure issue of fact and
recording findings de novo. Revisional
power is not a power of first or second
appellate Court which are final Courts of
fact and findings recorded therein would
be possible to be interfered under Section
48 on the ground discussed in Ram Dular
(Supra),
Sheshmani
(Supra)
and
Jagdamba Prasad (supra).

26. Impugned orders in these
matters are all subsequent to 1980 and,
therefore, could be governed by aforesaid
provision as it is. Sub Section (1) of
Section 48 in effect deals revisional
1092 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
power while sub sections (2) and (3)
relate to reference made by an authority
subordinate to Director of Consolidation.
From a bare and plain reading of Section
48(1) it is evident that Director of
Consolidation has been given power to
call for and examine any case decided or
proceedings taken by any subordinate
authority for the purpose of satisfying
himself (i) to the regularity of the
proceedings and (ii) to the correctness,
legality or propriety of any order.

27. Scope of reference is not under
consideration before this Court, and,
therefore, I find no reason to look into it.
Question no.1 is, therefore, answered
accordingly.

28. Power of interference by DDC in
revisional
jurisdiction
having
been
discussed above, now questions no. 1 and
2 both can be answered together to find
out whether the two authorities below i.e
CO and SOC, both have considered the
question of allotment of Chaks in
accordance with law or not, for the
reason, that if their decision was not in
accordance with law, it was open for the
revisional authority to interfere with and
not otherwise.

29. It is not in dispute that the
allotment of Chaks is to be made taking into
consideration principles laid down under
Section 19 of Act 1953. These principles
have been considered by this Court in
Bechan Singh Vs. Deputy Director of
Consolidation and others 1985 AWC 604
All. In para 4 thereof, this Court has said that
allotment of Chak has to be made consistent
with the principles, namely, (i) every tenure
holder should be allotted compact area at the
place where he holds largest part of his
holding (ii) the tenure holder, as far as
possible, should be allotted the plot on which
exists his private source of irrigation or any
other improvement together with the area in
the vicinity equal to valuation of the plot
originally held by him and (iii) every tenure
holder, as far as possible, would be allotted
Chak in conformity with the process of
rectangulation. The Court further held that
the area held by tenture holder prior to start
of consolidation proceedings, is relevant only
to ascertain whether the area allotted to the
tenure holder, varies by more than 25% or
not, as contained in the first proviso of
Section 19 of the Act, 1953.

30. In Dr. A.N. Srivastava Vs. DDC
1982 LLJ 42 Hon'ble K. N. Misra J.
referring to Section 19(1)(e) of Act 1953
said:

"The petitioners under the provisions of
Section 19 (1) (e) of the Act were entitled to
get a chak at a place where they had held
largest part of their original holding. The
words 'as for as possible' used in the said
sub-section do not confer any jurisdiction
upon the consolidation authorities to act
arbitrarily ignoring the provisions contained
therein.
The
Settlement
Officer
(Consolidation) while altering the chak of the
petitioners should have assigned reasons for
not making allotment to the petitioners on the
aforesaid plots Nos. 1082 and 1087 which
were admittedly largest part of their holding.
In my opinion the words as far as possible
used in Section 19 (1) (e) of the Act require
the provisions contained therein to be
followed unless their compliance cannot be
made for specific reasons to be assigned for
it" (emphasis added)

31. This was reiterated in Samai Lal
Vs. Deputy Director of Consolidation,
Pratapgarh and others 1985 LLJ 330 and
the Court further said:
3 All]. Ram Udit Vs. D.D.C. & Ors.
1093

"In the present case the Assistant
Consolidation Officer appears to have
acted illegally and in violation of the
provisions contained in Section 19 (1) (e)
of the Act which lays down that every
tenure-holder, as for as possible, should
be allotted a Chak at a place where he
held his largest holding. The Assistant
Consolidation
Officer
should
have
proposed a Chak of the petitioners on this
very plot No. 1703 in accordance with the
aforesaid provisions and in case it is not
possible, then the reasons should have
been mentioned for not allotting a Chak to
the petitioners on their plot. The words
"as far as possible" used in the said subsection do not confer any jurisdiction
upon the consolidation authorities to act
arbitrarily,
ignoring
the
provisions
contained thereunder." (emphasis added)

32. In Doodh Nath Vs. DDC and
others 1988(6)LCD 453 the Court held, if
a tenure holder has his Chak with private
source of irrigation, allotment of chak
must be weighed so as to keep intact
private source of irrigation of such
person. The Court said that there cannot
be any legal justification for refusing to
allot a Chak to a tenure holder at a
particular place, where he had held his
private source of irrigation on the ground
that his sons or other relations may have
been allotted a chak in its vicinity. Every
tenure holder would be entitled to get
allotment of chak at a place where he
could be allotted chak, keeping in view
the provisions contained in Section 19 of
the Act. The tenure holder would be
entitled to get near village Abadi so much
of land which he originally held at that
place and also at the place of his private
source of irrigation. The Court also said
that
undoubtedly,
while
deciding
objection filed by a tenure holder against
proposed allotment of chaks, equities are
to be adjusted taking into consideration
location of original land-holding of the
other tenure holders whose chaks are
likely to be affected while determining the
objection. But while doing so, just and
appropriate claim put forth by the tenure
holder cannot be rejected merely on the
ground that he is a big tenure holder as
compared to the opposite parties or that
his son or some other relation has been
allotted chak near the place where the
objector claims an allotment of chak as
against his original holding. The Court
added a few words of caution for the
consolidation authorities, in the following
manner:

" In the matter of allotment of chaks
a care is to be taken by the authorities to
allot chak to the tenure holders to which
they are entitled as against their original
holdings. If appropriate chak is not
allotted to a tenure holder, he sustains
irreparable loss and injury for all times to
come. Thus in exercise of powers under
Article 226 of the Constitution, this Court
is not to feel hesitant in interfering with
the impugned orders which are found to
be unwarranted in law and facts of the
case, merely on the ground that the writ
petition could not be taken up earlier for
disposal. The impugned orders cannot be
left to survive merely on the delay in
disposal of the writ petition for no fault of
the petitioner." (para-11)

33. Applying the above principles of
law relating to allotment of chak and also
statutory provision, this Court finds that
specific objection was taken by petitioner
regarding nature of land that it mostly
comprised of Usar and further that
original plot was near Abadi and main
road, yet he has been allotted a chak at
1094 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
different place, but for rejecting his objection
and setting aside the orders passed by
subordinate authorities, the DDC has not at
all looked into this objection and has gone to
decide the matter only on the ground that
since initially objection was raised by
petitioner and not by others, against the
proposed allotment of Chak, therefore,
scheme
proposed
initially
should
be
accepted. He has followed a majoritarian
way. He has failed to consider that right of
objection against allotment of Chak has been
conferred upon aggrieved tenure holder by
the statute. If such objection has been made,
raising valid and relevant issue(s), it is
incumbent upon consolidation authorities to
decide the same and those issues cannot be
bye-passed or ignored or omitted on
irrelevant considerations, as has been done
by DDC in the case in hand. The location of
chak, its value, are all interconnected issues.
The same cannot be ignored for fanciful
conjectures and unmindful whims of
consolidation authorities. It shows mere
arbitrary act on their part, instead of an
attempt to decide the matter by doing justice
in accordance with law with the poor tenure
holder whose entire livelihood depends on it.
If a chak is altered by another one which is
much inferior for various reasons, then what
he initially held, it amounts to deprives him
of his valuable property, by giving another
land which is not equivalent as far as
possible, but is apparently inferior in various
ways and thereby he would stand deprived of
his
right
to
property
affecting
his
constitutional right under Article 14 read
with 300A of the Constitution of India.
Consolidation authorities are therefore,
bound to act more cautiously and objectively.

34. In the result, the writ petition is
allowed. The impugned order passed by
DDC is hereby set aside. The matter is
remanded to DDC to decide petitioner's
revision afresh, in the light of observations
made above, and, in accordance with law
expeditiously and, in any case, within two
months from the date of production of a
certified copy of this order before him, after
giving due opportunity of hearing to all
concerned parties.

35. No costs.
--------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 07.03.2014

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE SUDHIR AGARWAL, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 5441 of 2002

M/S Kranti Steel Pvt. Ltd. Bahraich Petitioner
Versus
Chief Controlling Revenue Authority &
Ors. .Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Shashi Nandan, Sri Pooja Agarwal
Sri Sanjiv Kumar, Sri Udayan Nandan

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.

Indian Stamp Act, Section 33/47-ADemand of additional stamp duty with
penalty-property
purchases
being
factory premises-no where in sale deedmentioned the machinery and tools shall
be removed-hence demand proper-in
view of Full Bench decision Girish Kumar
Srivastava-penalty can not be imposed.

Held: Para-21 & 22
21. In view of above, I find no error on the
part of respondents-Revenue Authorities in
holding that stamp duty was chargeable on
entire sale consideration of Rs. 118 lacks
and to this extent the impugned orders
warrants no interference.

22. Now coming to second aspect
regarding
penalty,
I
find
that
the