Back
2003 Supreme(All) 1232
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Yatindra Singh
SHI BARAN - Appellant
Versus
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH - Respondents
C. M. W. P. 27766 Of 2001
Decided On : 05/23/2003
The main legal point established in the judgment is that consolidation operations can proceed in a development area if there is no explicit or implied prohibition and if the land use in the master plan does not conflict with the purpose of the Consolidation Act.
Headnote:
Consolidation - Development Area - UP Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1950, UP Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973 - Section 3, Section 4(2), Section 8, Section 9
Fact of the Case:
The case involved the question of whether consolidation proceedings under the UP Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1950 can proceed over an area declared as a development area under the UP Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that there was no implied prohibition for consolidation operations in the development area as the land use in the master plan was for agriculture, which did not conflict with the purpose of the Consolidation Act.
Issues: The main issue was whether consolidation proceedings could continue in an area declared as a development area under the UP Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that there was no explicit or implied prohibition for consolidation operations in the development area, as the land use in the master plan was for agriculture and did not conflict with the purpose of the Consolidation Act.
Final Decision: The writ petitions were dismissed, and the respondents were directed to complete consolidation and hand over possession to the parties in accordance with the law.
( 1 ) THE only question involved in these writ petitions is, whether consolidation proceedings under UP Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1950 (the Consolidation Act) can go on over an area which is declared to be a development area under up Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973 (the UPD Act ).
( 2 ) SECTION 3 (see below) of the UPD Act states when an area can be declared as a development area. The state government can declare an area as a development area by publishing a notification in the gazette that the area is required to be developed. The State Government has issued a notification No. 3779/xxxvii- 2-4 (DD)- 72, dated 19. 8. 1974, (published in UP Gazette, Extra dated 20. 8. 1974) under section 3 of the UPD Act declaring area within Allahabad Nagar Mahapalika and area within a distance of 8 Kms on all sides beyond the Nagar Mahapalika limits (excluding cantonment areas) to be a development area. In these writs the impugned notification under section 4 (2) of the Consolidation Act is in respect of villages that are situate in pargana Jhusi, Tehsil Phulpur, district Allahabad. These villages are within 8 Kms from Allahabad Nagar Mahapalika limits and are within the development area as defined under the UPD Act. They are also included in the master plan.
( 3 ) SECTIONS 3 (2), 3 (2a), (4-C) and 3 (11) of the Consolidation Act refer to Consolidation, Consolidation area, Holding, Land and Tenure holder. Land means land held or occupied for purposes, connected agriculture etc. Tenure holder among the others include a bhumidhar with transferable or with non transferable rights and an Asami. Holding means land held by a tenure holder. Consolidation area means land in respect which notification under section 4 of the Consolidation Act has been issued, except to those areas where UP Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 (the ZA Act) does not apply. Consolidation is defined as rearrangement of holding of a tenure holder into compact area, except for the land mentioned in the explanation to section 3 (2) of the Consolidation Act.
( 4 ) SECTION 1 (2) of the ZA Act states that it extends to the entire State except to the areas included in a Municipality or a notified area on 7th of July, 1949. The villages involved in the writ petitions were neither included in any municipality nor notified or town area on 7. 7. 1949. They are not within any such area municipality even today. The ZA Act applies to the villages in questions. The petitioners or residents of these villages are tenure holders. The land is not covered by the explanation mentioned in section 3 (2) of the Consolidation Act. There is nothing in the ZA Act or the Consolidation Act that Consolidation operations can not go in respect of these villages.
( 5 ) COUNSEL for the petitioner referred to sections 8 and 9 of the UPD act (see below) and submitted that consolidation can not go on in an area included in the master plan.
( 6 ) SECTIONS 8 and 9 are headed as Civil Survey of, and master plan for the development area and Zonal Development plans. The master plan is to serve as basic pattern of frame work within which the zonal development plans of the various zone are to be prepared. The Zonal development plan contains a site-plan and reservation of sites for roads and for construction sites. There is no specific bar in these sections that consolidation operations can not go on in the development area. However, the counsel for the petitioner submitted that there is implied bar as the area is marked for construction activity and consolidation is for purposes of agriculture.
( 7 ) THE Allahabad Development Authority, Allahabad (ADA) has filed a counter affidavit along with the master plan. The area of these villages has been shown to be agricultural/green belt in the master plan. This fact has not been denied in the rejoinder affidavit. The use of these area in the master plan is agriculture. There is no conflict in use of the land under the master plan a
