2001 Supreme(All) 822
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
R. R. Yadav, J.
LALJI - Appellant
Versus
DEPUTY DIRECTOR, CONSOLIDATION, VARANASI - Respondents
C. M. W. P. 30625 Of 2001
Decided On : 08/16/2001
Sankatha Rai, Vijay Kumar Rai, Vinod Kumar Rai
The confirmed and published provisional consolidation scheme in the unit cannot be split up by granting ad interim stay order, and the Deputy Director of Consolidation has permissible actions in chak revisions.
Headnote:
Writ Petition - Interlocutory Order - U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Rules, 1954 - Sections 23, 24, 28, 29 - The court held that no writ petition is maintainable against interlocutory order modifying the ad interim stay order unless compelling unconscionable reasons are demonstrated. The judgment discusses the provisions of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Rules, 1954, particularly Sections 23, 24, 28, and 29, and their implications on the delivery of possession and demarcation of provisional consolidation scheme. It emphasizes that the confirmed and published provisional consolidation scheme in the unit cannot be split up by granting ad interim stay order, and outlines the permissible actions of the Deputy Director of Consolidation in chak revisions.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner objected to the delivery of possession due to standing crops, but the court referred to the provisions of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Rules, 1954, and held that the petitioner is not entitled to claim additional safeguards beyond the mandatory provisions.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the writ petition against the interlocutory order was not maintainable and directed the Deputy Director of Consolidation to decide the revision between the parties as early as possible.
Issues: Maintainability of writ petition against interlocutory order, entitlement to additional safeguards beyond mandatory provisions.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that the confirmed and published provisional consolidation scheme in the unit cannot be split up by granting ad interim stay order, and outlined the permissible actions of the Deputy Director of Consolidation in chak revisions.
Final Decision: The writ petition was finally disposed of at the admission stage with a direction to the Deputy Director of Consolidation to decide the revision between the parties as early as possible.
( 1 ) HEARD the learned counsel for the petitioner. Perused the order impugned dated 4. 8. 2001 (Annexure-1 to the writ petition) whereby ad-interim stay order has been modified by the Deputy director of Consolidation, Varanasi.
( 2 ) AT the first instance, it is held that ordinarily no writ petition is maintainable against interlocutory order modifying the ad interim stay order unless compelling unconscionable reasons are demonstrated. The writ petition against interlocutory order cannot be entertained as a matter of course under Article 227 of the Constitution. The present writ petition is not maintainable against Interlocutory order and an argument contrary to it is not acceptable.
( 3 ) IT is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that he has no objection, if the chak is demarcated on the spot, but delivery of possession should not be made because crops of the petitioner are standing over a portion of chak which is likely to be disturbed causing prejudice to him.
( 4 ) THE grievance of the petitioner to the effect that his crops are standing, therefore. If delivery of possession is effected, a serious prejudice will be caused to him, is not palatable to me in view of sub-rule (2) of Rule 55 of the Rules framed under Act of 1953 which provides that in case the right to tend and gather the crops standing on such chaks or lands or parts thereof remain with the person from whom possession is transferred. the Assistant Consolidation Officer shall in consultation with Consolidation Committee determine in C. H. Form No. 32 the amount of compensation which may not exceed three times rental value of cropped area for use of the land to be payable by the person to whom possession over the land is transferred. The date by which the standing crops must be harvested and removed from the plot, and the date by which compensation determined must be paid, should also be fixed by the Assistant Consolidation officer. Extracts in C. H. Form 32 shall be served on the tenure holder concerned.
( 5 ) IT is pertinent to mention here that in order to clear the ambiguity, an Explanation is added to sub-rule (2) of Rule 55 of U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Rules, 1954, according to which no compensation shall be determined and paid where no sowing season intervenes between the date of delivery of possession and the date fixed for harvesting the standing crops. It is to be imbibed that Section 29 of the Act of 1953 read with Sub-rule (3) of Rule 55 of the Rules framed under the aforesaid Act provides for determination of compensation by the Assistant Consolidation officer. The aforesaid safeguards available to all the tenure holders of the unit after confirmation and publication of provisional consolidation scheme by the Settlement Officer, Consolidation shall be treated to be sufficient and the petitioner is not entitled to claim some additional safeguard as suggested by the learned counsel for the petitioner beyond mandatory provisions envisaged under Sections 23, 24, 28 and 29 of Act of 1953 and Rules 54a and 55 of the Rules framed under the said Act. It would be expedient to reproduce the mandatory provisions envisaged under Section 23 of the Act of 1953 which reads thus :
"23. Confirmation of the Provisional Consolidation Scheme and the issue of the allotment orders-- (1) The Settlement Officer, Consolidation, shall confirm the Provisional Consolidation scheme (a) if no objections are filed within the time specified in Section 20 : or (b) where such objections are filed, after such modifications, or alterations, as may be necessary in view of the orders passed under Sub-sections (1) to (4) of Section 21. (2) The Provisional Consolidation Scheme so confirmed shall be published in the unit and, except as otherwise provided by or under this Act, shall be final. (3) (i) Where the allotments made under Section 19a are not modified under Section 21 and are confirmed under Subsection (1), the extract contained in the notice i