Back
2014 Supreme(All) 2697
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Anjani Kumar Mishra, J.
Chhote Lal and Ors. - Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. and Ors. - Respondent
Writ - B No. - 2879 of 2014
Decided On : 18-04-2014
For the Petitioner:- Arvind Srivastava
For the Respondent:- C.S.C.,Rama Kant Tiwari
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the consolidation courts cannot go behind an allotment made by the Gaon Sabha, and the entitlement of the petitioners to the disputed land should be addressed in proceedings under Rule 109 of the CH Rules.
Headnote:
abuse of process - U.P. Consolidation of Holdings - CH Rules - Section 198 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act - [Case No. 6200, Appeal No. 3162, Revision No. 1422, CM Writ Petition No. 27329 of 1997, Rule 109 of the CH Rules, Section 198(4) of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act] - The court discussed the abuse of process by the parties, the allotment of land by the Gaon Sabha, and the provisions of Section 198 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act in relation to the disputed land.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners sought to quash a judgment passed by the Dy. Director of Consolidation/Collector, Chitrakoot, challenging the remand order dated 31.5.2007. The dispute related to the recording of names over certain plots and the subsequent allotment of land by the Gaon Sabha.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the allotment of land by the Gaon Sabha in favor of the respondent was a valid agricultural lease under Section 198 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act. The court also noted that the petitioners had initiated proceedings for cancellation of the lease.
Issues: The issues included the abuse of process by the parties, the validity of the allotment of land by the Gaon Sabha, and the entitlement of the petitioners to the disputed land.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the consolidation courts cannot go behind an allotment made by the Gaon Sabha and that the petitioners' claim regarding the valuation of the plots in dispute should be addressed in proceedings under Rule 109 of the CH Rules.
Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed, and the impugned orders were upheld, allowing the petitioners an opportunity to make submissions and adduce evidence in the remanded proceedings.
Anjani Kumar Mishra,J.
Heard Sri Arvind Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Rama Kant Tiwari, learned counsel for the caveator-respondent no. 4, as also learned Standing Counsel representing the State-respondents.
2. The petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking a writ of certiorari quashing the judgement dated 30.11.1983 passed by the Dy. Director of Consolidation/Collector, Chitrakoot, a copy whereof has been filed as Annexure -18 to the writ petition.
3. From the perusal of the record, as also the impugned order it emerges that Revision No. 41 of 2012 was filed by the petitioner challenging the remand order dated 31.5.2007 passed by the Settlement Officer of Consolidation (in short, the SOC), whereby the orders of the Consolidation Officer dated 5.12.1997, 22.4.2000 and 15.2.2001 were set aside and the matter was remanded to the Consolidation Officer to pass fresh orders.
4. The revision aforesaid was initially dismissed by an order dated 27.8.2012 holding the same to be not maintainable being directed against an interlocutory order. The order dated 27.8.2012 was subjected to challenge by means of CM Writ Petition No. 5871 of 2013. This Court vide its order dated 2.1.2013 allowed the writ petition, set aside the order dated 27.8.2012 and directed the DDC to pass orders afresh on merits after hearing all concerned.
5. The DDC in compliance of the order of this Court has passed the impugned order and has dismissed the said revision, as a result whereof, the order of remand dated 31.5.2007 passed by the SOC has been affirmed.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioners has assailed the order impugned on the ground that the proceedings of the appeal themselves were an abuse of the process of the Court and had been initiated to prevent the petitioners from availing the fruits of the protracted litigation between the petitioners' father and the father of respondent no. 4. He has further stated that the dispute relates to plot nos. 2649, 2650 and 2651, which were bhumidhari plots of the father of the petitioners.
7. From the perusal of the record and the submission made, it EMERGES that the Consolidation Officer on 16.3.1983 passed an order in Case No. 6200 whereby the name of Kamta Prasad, son of Hanuman Deen was ordered to be recorded over the aforesaid plots. The petitioners' father filed Appeal No. 3162 against the order of the Consolidation Officer which was allowed by the order dated 27.3.1987 and the name of Kamta Prasad was ordered to be expunged. Against this appellate order, Kamta Prasad preferred Revision No. 1422, which was dismissed for default on 9.7.1987. Restoration application was also dismissed in default on 15.2.1991. The second restoration application filed by Kamta Prasad was also dismissed for default on 16.1.1996. The third restoration application came to be dismissed on 11.7.1996.
8. It appears that another restoration application was filed and was allowed and, thereafter, the DDC by his order dated 14.5.1997 dismissed the revision on merits. This order was challenged by means of CM Writ Petition No. 27329 of 1997, which was dismissed by this Court on 28.8.2002. The order expunging the name of Kamta Prasad thus attained finality.
9. Thereafter it is statedCase No. 70 was instituted under Rule 109 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Rules (in short, CH Rules) for incorporating the name of the petitioners over the land in dispute, and a parwana was issued in this regard on 15.12.1997. Despite the issuance of parwana, the proceedings under Rule 109 were not brought to their logical end, forcing the petitioners to file a writ petition, which was disposed of with the direction to the authorities to deliver possession of the land in dispute to the petitioner as early as possible.
10. It is stated that thereafter a contempt application was also filed wherein notices were issued, as a consequence whereof the names of the petitioners were recorded in the revenue records on 16.02.2001 but the act
