Gurubaksh and 5 Others v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Court No. - 48 Case :- WRIT - B No. - 3758 of 2023 Petitioner :- Gurubaksh And 5 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Sushant Misra Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Saurabh Shyam Shamshery,J.

¶1Heard Sri R.K. Tiwari, Advocate holding brief of Sri Sushant Mishra, learned counsel for petitioners and perused the record.

¶2Petitioners are aggrieved by the concurrent findings returned by Appellate as well as Revisional Authorities.

¶3Learned counsel for petitioners submits that contesting-respondents have no original holding at Gata No. 474, which is original holding of petitioners, therefore, they are not entitled to get any chak allotted at said Gata and petitioners are deprived of benefit of road side.

¶4I have carefully perused the order passed by Settlement Officer of Consolidation as well as Deputy Director of Consolidation and it would be appropriate to refer relevant part of the order passed by Revisional Authority hereinafter: "

उभयपककककववददनअधधवकदककबहसससननगयनववनगरदननपतदवलनकद

अवललकनवसथलवनरनकणवकयदगयद।सथलवनरनकणककसमयपककदरममककपर

उपससथतरहक।अवललकनसकपदयदगयदवकवनगरदननकतदरकदपथमचकममलनमबर

कललकरववदतनयचकपमणररपसकममलनमबरपरबनदहह।गदटदससखयद-474 मम

वनगरदननकतदरकद0.163

हक०असशककसदपक

0.340

हक०कदचकममलनमबरपर

पवदषवकयदगयदहह।सथलवनरनकणसकपदयदगयदवकउकनमबरसडकसकलगकहहए

बडदचकहहतथदसमतलवउपजदऊभमवमपरचकपवदषवकयदगयदहह।

वनगरदननकतदरधजससथदनपरचकककमदसगकररहदहहवहदसपरववपकनककननवभरन

हहईहहमकदननहहबनदहहआहह।वनगरदननकतदरकलममलगदटदससखयद-471/1 आवद

सडकसकलगदहहआचकपवदषवकयदगयदहह।ववपकनकदगदटदससखयद-474 मम

0.060

हक०रकवदसडकसकलगदपवदषवकयदगयदहह।वनगरदननकतदरकदचकममल

नमबरकललकरगदटदससखयद-474

ममअसशसकअधधकरकवदपवदषहलनकववदतनय

चकककअनयगदटकसडकसकलगकपवदषहलनककककदरणवनगरदननकतदरककमदसगअनसवचत

पतनतहलतनहह।अततचकससखयद-721

ककससशलधनककसमबनधममबनदलबसत

अधधकदरनचकबनदननयदयदलयककअपनलससखयद-399 व534

धदरद-21(2) मम

– पदररतआदकशवदनदसक

10.04.2015

ककववरदयलधजतवनगरदननवनरसतककजदतन

हह।पतदवलनबददआवशयककदयरवदहनददधखलदफतरहल।"

¶5From above it is absolutely evident that the order was passed after spot inspection in presence of parties, which has not been seriously disputed. It has also not been denied that at Gata No. 474 petitioners have share to the extent of

0.163, however, they have been allotted a larger area which approximately double (0.34 hectare).

¶6Other argument of petitioners that contesting-respondents are not entitled for chak at Gata No. 474 is baseless since petitioners have already been in beneficial position.

¶7So far as other argument is concerned, which is with regard to quality of land, it has no legal basis since even the contesting-respondents have been provided same land as well as no documentary evidence or material has been placed before concerned authorities with regard to nature of land. The aforesaid order has been passed to achieve the object of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953, therefore, not being perverse or beyond jurisdiction, it is not a fit case for interference in writ jurisdiction.

¶8Writ petition is accordingly dismissed. Order Date :- 8.11.2023 AK High Court of Judicature at Allahabad