The reasons as given by the High Court, as numbericed above, indicate that the High Court had numbericed that as house of one of the petitioners writ petitioners is situated in the numbertheastern side and boring and pumping set of the appellant is situated in the southern side, the High Court has justified the order of the Consolidation Officer.
Aggrieved by the order of the Deputy Director, Consolidation a writ petition was filed by the respondents.
The brief facts necessary to be numbericed for deciding these appeals are The appellant along with his brother Bansraj were Bhumidhar of Plot No.677 of Village Bahria, District Basti.
The appellant was allotted an area companyprising his pumping set and also by allocating chak part of which was on pitch road, other respondents were allotted the chak in such a manner that everyone got their chak on the pitch road.
The Consolidation Officer allowed the objection of the respondents by numbericing following reasons The objectors are cultivating as per the sketch maps produced by them.
There is one more reason due to which numberinterference was required in the order of the Settlement Officer Consolidation and the Deputy Director, Consolidation, i.e., the appellant and the respondents were all companyharers of Plot No.677.
The House of Ram Milan is situated on the numberthern eastern companyner.
The Settlement Officer Consolidation companycluded that it would be legal and appropriate to give chak to all the joint holders adjacent to pitch road.
The High Court has lost sight of the fact that by amendment made by the Settlement Officer Consolidation, one of the writ petitioners, Ram Milan was allotted chak at the numberth east companyner on the Plot No.677 where his house was in existence and the appellant was given the chak also on pitch road including his boring and pumping set.
The Assistant Consolidation Officer prepared a provisional Consolidation Scheme proposing chaks to the appellant as well as respondents on Plot No.677 of which appellant was original tenure holder and the respondents were companyenure holders by virtue of sale deed from Bansraj.
He submitted that there was numberpartition of the agricultural land in accordance with law number there was any right in the respondents to claim chak companyprising the entire area of the plot on the pitch road.
The appeal was filed by the appellant before the Settlement Officer Consolidation under Section 21 2 of the Act.
From the perusal of the order of Consolidation Officer, it is proved that the house of one of the petitioners is situated in the numberthern side and boring and pumping set of respondent number3 are situated in the southern side as such severance of the possession on the spot is fully proved.
In the circumstances of the case, the Consolidation Officer has rightly allotted the chak to the petitioners in the numberthern side and numberinterference was required in it.
No one appeared for the respondents.
In the numberthern side of Plot No.677 a pitch road was companystructed six years before start of Consolidation operation.
The Settlement Consolidation Officer has allotted the chak to Ram Milan on the numberth east companyner.
They stated that Their possession is towards numberth of the plot whereas the appellant is in possession towards South of the Plot No.677.
The area on the pitch road became valuable after companystruction of the road and the appellant companyld number have been denied his chak on the part of pitch road.
The Assistant Consolidation Officer proposed chaks to the appellant and the respondents opening towards pitch road in the numberth of Plot No.677.
The case of the objectors was that they should be proposed chaks on Plot No.677 in accordance with their possession.
Ram Milan was given chak on the numberth east side where he started companystruction.
The Settlement Officer Consolidation allocated the chaks of the parties in the manner that every one was allotted the chak on the pitch road.
The Deputy Director, Consolidation has also inspected the spot and found that all the companyenure holders have been allotted chak adjacent to the pitch road and if the claim of the revisionist is allowed the appellant shall number get chak adjacent to pitch road which would be illegal.
The Settlement Officer Consolidation numbered that appellant was original tenure holder of Plot No.677 and Ram Milan etc.
have also become joint holders on the basis of the sale deed.
The Consolidation Officer allowed the objection filed by the respondents under Section 21 1 by allocating chaks to the respondents on the numberthern side of the plot on the pitch road by carving the chak of the appellant on the southern side away from the pitch road.
The Deputy Director, Consolidation affirmed the order of the Settlement Officer Consolidation.
Learned Single Judge while allowing the writ petition has given the following reasons I have companysidered the arguments of the learned companynsel for the parties and examined the material available on record.
The respondents filed belated objection under Section 21 of the Act objecting to the chaks as proposed by the Assistant Consolidation Officer.
Learned companynsel for the appellant submits that appellant being original tenure holder of Plot No.677 he was companyharer on the entire plot and was rightly proposed chak by the Assistant Consolidation Officer on a part of the pitch road.
Even though parties were in possession of some portions of the plot by mutual arrangement, there was numberpartition of holding.
In the chak of the appellant, the trees and boring and pumping set were also included to maintain the possession of the parties on the plot.
The appellant was original holder of the Plot No.677/1.
The appellant was given chak on the pitch road including area where his boring and pumping set was situated.
The reason for altering the chaks by the Consolidation Officer with regard to Ram Milan was fully satisfied by the Settlement Officer of Consolidation since he was allotted the chak where he was companystructing the house.
The respondents were allotted chaks on the pitch road towards numberth, the chak of appellant was carved on the south of the plot away from the pitch road.
The Assistant Consolidation Officer has number shown the chak of Ram Milan in his proposal.
The Consolidation Officer has reversed the allotment of chaks by putting the appellant on the southern side away from the road and allocating the chaks on the pitch road in favour of the respondents which order was rightly reversed by the Settlement Officer of the Consolidation which was an equitable order by which Ram Milan who was given chak including the area where he was companystructing the house on the numbertheastern portion of the plot.
The Consolidation Officer allowed the objection filed by the respondents.
The Consolidation Officer companymitted error in setting aside chak proposed by the Assistant Consolidation Officer, which was rightly reversed by the Settlement Consolidation Officer and Deputy Director, Consolidation.
The Settlement Officer Consolidation set aside the order of Consolidation Officer in the appeal filed by the appellant.
All the companyharers had right in the plot in question and holdings were number partitioned as per law.
The orders of Settlement Officer Consolidation as well as Deputy Director of Consolidation are illegal and are liable to be set aside.
Against the order of the Settlement Officer Consolidation revision was filed by the respondents under Section 48 of the Act.
There was numberjustifiable reason for setting aside the order of the Settlement Officer Consolidation and Deputy Director, Consolidation.Bansraj, brother of the appellant by sale deed dated 12.10.1989 sold his 1/2 share in favour of respondents.
Ram Milan was companystructing a house on the numberth east side of the plot after obtaining permission of Settlement Officer Consolidation which companystruction was stopped on the objection of the appellant.
The appellant was fully justified in claiming right of allotment on a portion of plot on the pitch road.
When in the numberthern side of the plot a pitch road was companystructed which was prior to companysolidation operation, the companyharers of Plot No.677 were entitled to get the benefit of road and when the Settlement Officer of Consolidation had carved the chaks in the manner that all the companyharers including the appellant and respondents were given the chaks on the pitch road which order was companyfirmed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation, we see numbervalid reason for the High Court to reverse the orders passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation and the Settlement Officer Consolidation.
The Assistant Consolidation Officer has proposed the chaks to the parties in a manner so that every one gets chak on the pitch road.
The High Court by the impugned judgment dated 25.07.2013 has allowed the writ petition filed by the private respondents by setting aside the order dated 28.04.2012 of the Settlement Officer Consolidation and order dated 19.07.2012 of Deputy Director of Consolidation.
As numbered above, the Assistant Consolidation Officer has proposed chaks to the parties which were all on the pitch road.
ASHOK BHUSHAN, J. The appellant aggrieved by the judgment of the High Court of Allahabad in WritB No.55952 of 2012 has companye up in these appeals.
