Hansraj vs Mewalal

2. The brief facts necessary to be noticed for deciding these appeals are:

3. The appeal was filed by the appellant before the Settlement Officer Consolidation under Section 21(2) of the Act. The Settlement Officer Consolidation noted 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. Ram Milan was constructing a house on the north east side of the plot after obtaining permission of Settlement Officer Consolidation which construction was stopped on the 4 objection of the appellant. The Settlement Officer Consolidation concluded that it would be legal and appropriate to give chak to all the joint holders adjacent to pitch road. The appeal was allowed. Ram Milan was given chak on the north east side where he started construction. The appellant was given chak on the pitch road including area where his boring and pumping set was situated.

4. Against the order of the Settlement Officer Consolidation revision was filed by the respondents under Section 48 of the Act. The Deputy Director, Consolidation affirmed the order of the Settlement Officer Consolidation. The Deputy Director, Consolidation has also inspected the spot and found that all the co­tenure holders have been allotted chak adjacent to the pitch road and if the claim of the revisionist is allowed the appellant shall not get chak adjacent to pitch road which would be illegal.

10. The appellant was original holder of the Plot No.677/1. When in the northern side of the plot a pitch road was constructed which was prior to consolidation operation, the co­sharers of Plot No.677 8 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 co­sharers including the appellant and respondents were given the chaks on the pitch road which order was confirmed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation, we see no valid reason for the High Court to reverse the orders passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation and the Settlement Officer Consolidation. The reasons as given by the High Court, as noticed above, indicate that the High Court had noticed that as house of one of the petitioners (writ petitioners) is situated in the north­eastern 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. 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 north east corner on the Plot No.677 where his house was in existence and the appellant was given the chak also on pitch road 9 including his boring and pumping set.

12. It is not the case of any of the parties that holding was partitioned by an order obtained under Section 176. All the co­sharers had right in the plot in question and holdings were not partitioned as per law. The appellant was fully justified in claiming right of allotment on a portion of plot on the pitch road. 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 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 constructing the house on the north­eastern portion of the plot. The appellant was allotted an area comprising 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 11 pitch road. There was no justifiable reason for setting aside the order of the Settlement Officer Consolidation and Deputy Director, Consolidation. It is to be noticed that Settlement Officer Consolidation and Deputy Director while passing their orders have also inspected the spot and the orders passed by them were on the basis of spot inspection. The High Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Act 226 committed error in allowing the writ petition by restoring the order of the Consolidation Officer which was an inequitable order. In the facts and circumstances of the present case, equity was adjusted by the order of Settlement Officer of Consolidation in making the chak in the manner that chak of every co­sharer was on the pitch road which order needed no interference by the High Court. The appellant filed a review which was too dismissed by the High Court on 20.01.2014.

13. In view of the foregoing discussion, we are of the view that orders of the High Court are unsustainable 12 and are hereby set aside. The appeals are allowed, judgment dated 25.07.2013 as well as order dated 20.01.2014 are set aside. The writ petition filed by the respondents stand dismissed. No costs.