IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
R. R. Yadav, J.
JAHID HASAN - Appellant
Versus
DY.DIRECTOR, CONSOLIDATION, SHAHARANPUR - Respondents
C. M. W. P. 23918 Of 2001
Decided On : 07/04/2001
Manipulation - Revenue Records - The court held that allegations of manipulation in revenue records during consolidation operation without specific averments in the writ petition do not entitle the petitioners to seek relief under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The court emphasized the protection granted to Consolidation Authorities under the Judicial Officers Protection Act and the availability of alternative remedies under the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners sought implementation of an inquiry report submitted by the Joint Director of Consolidation regarding alleged manipulation in the village records during consolidation operation.
Finding of the Court:
The court dismissed the writ petition, stating that the allegations were vague and did not inspire confidence. It emphasized the protection granted to Consolidation Authorities and the availability of alternative remedies under the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act.
Issues: Allegations of manipulation in revenue records, availability of alternative remedies, and the conditions precedent for issuing a writ of mandamus.
Ratio Decidendi: Allegations of manipulation in revenue records without specific averments do not entitle relief under Article 226. Consolidation Authorities are protected under the Judicial Officers Protection Act, and alternative remedies are available under the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act.
Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed in limine.
( 1 ) HEARD learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri V. M. Zaidi, at length.
( 2 ) PERUSED the averments made in the writ petition together with the annexures filed in support of the writ petition.
( 3 ) IT is contended by Sri V. M. Zaidi, learned counsel for the petitioners, that the records of the whole village had been manipulated and in such a situation, the petitioners would be satisfied if the inquiry report submitted by the Joint Director of Consolidation is implemented in letter and spirit.
( 4 ) THE aforesaid contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is not acceptable for the reasons given herein below.
( 5 ) IT is conceded by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the correction of the records during consolidation operation is based on judicial pronouncements of Consolidation authorities. No corrections in the revenue records during consolidation operation can be incorporated without judicial orders passed by the Consolidation Authorities as envisaged under u. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act. Entries incorporated on the basis of judicial orders are made subject to appeal and revision under the said Act.
( 6 ) IT is well to remember that all the Consolidation Authorities, while exercising their powers in deciding objections, appeals or revisions, perform their duties as judicial officers and they are protected under the Judicial Officers Protection Act, 1850. Under the aforesaid Act, the immunity granted to Consolidation Authorities, while exercising their judicial power is exceedingly wide so that they may act fearlessly, impartially and with a sense of security. The judicial Officers Protection Act is extendable even in those cases where Consolidation authorities have acted without jurisdiction in passing judicial orders, on the basis of which revenue records are corrected. Vague allegations relating to manipulation in revenue records during consolidation operation without making specific averments in the writ petition by the petitioners do not make them entitle to seek relief prayed for under extraordinary Jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The allegations made in the present writ petition are vague and as such, it deserves to be dismissed on this ground alone.
( 7 ) IT is observed that if there is any manipulation in the revenue records during consolidation operation as alleged in the writ petition, the petitioners have efficacious alternative remedy under sub-section (3) of Section 48 of the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act and the instant writ petition is liable to be dismissed on this ground also. It is to be imbibed that disputed questions of fact cannot be gone into under writ jurisdiction.
( 8 ) IT is stated by the learned counsel for the petitioners Sri Zaidi that the inquiry report submitted by the Joint Director of Consolidation is to be implemented by issuing a writ of mandamus. It is held that writ of mandamus cannot be issued as a matter of course unless conditions precedent are satisfied for issuing such a prerogative writ. In the present case, conditions precedent for issuing a writ of mandamus is neither averred in the writ petition nor demonstrated before the court by the learned counsel for the petitioners, hence I decline to issue a writ of mandamus especially when the averments made in the writ petition do not inspire my confidence. Suffice is to say in this regard that there is presumption about the honesty and Integrity of an officer and I am of the view that if any Inquiry is conducted as alleged in the writ petition by Joint Director of consolidation, it is expected from the appropriate authority to take disciplinary action against those who are found guilty in the Inquiry report.
( 9 ) WITH the aforesaid observation, the instant writ petition is dismissed in limine.
.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.