The court emphasized that the claim of title over the land in dispute was to be decided by the Consolidation Officer, and the patta granted to the respondents was not illegal.

Ram Surat Ram (Maurya),J.

1. Heard Sri Sudhanshu Pandey for the petitioner and Sri Ayank Mishra for the contesting respondents.

2. This writ petition has been filed against the order dated 09.05.2011, by which the application of the petitioner for cancellation of the patta granted to respondents-4 and 5 dated 10.06.1981, as approved on 20.12.1992, has been rejected and the order of Additional Commissioner dated 31.01.2014 dismissing the revision of the petitioner against the aforesaid order.

3. The petitioner filed an application (registered as Case No. 5/38/2010) under Section 198(4) read with Section 126 of U.P. Act No. 1 of 1951, for cancellation of patta of respondents-4 and 5. It has been stated by the petitioner that the land in dispute was the property of the petitioner and it has been wrongly recorded as Gaon Sabha property. The petitioner has filed an objection under Section 9 of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953, in respect of the land in dispute, claiming his title over it, which is pending before Consolidation Officer. However, in the meantime, the patta has been executed in favour of the respondents of the land in dispute for plantation. On the application of the petitioner, the Tahsildar submitted a report dated 05.12.1991, in which, it has been stated that in CH Form 2-Ka, prepared during consolidation, plot no. 6403 (area 7-0-5 bigha) was recorded as banjar land. In the earlier revenue record, it was recorded as jungle and on the spot, the land is not cultivable. At the time of inspection, various eucalyptus trees were found to be planted over it. It has been further found that the patta dated 10.06.1981 has been granted on the resolution of Land Management Committee for plantation over the land in dispute, which was approved by the order of Sub-Divisional Officer dated 20.12.1992. Since the application for cancellation of patta was filed by the petitioner on 05.12.2009, as such, it was found that the application was time-barred.

4. So far as the patta is concerned, it was found that the patta was granted to the respondents on the resolution of Land Management Committee and was confirmed by the order of Sub-Divisional Officer dated 20.12.1992, as such, the application of the petitioner was rejected as time-barred. The revision of the petitioner has also been dismissed by the order dated 31.1.2014. Hence, this writ petition has been filed.

5. The counsel for the petitioner submits that the land in dispute was the ancestral property of the petitioner and the petitioner has filed an objection during consolidation, which is pending. The Gaon Sabha has no right over the land in dispute, accordingly, the patta granted by Land Management Committee in favour of the respondents was illegal. In the circumstances, the patta was liable to be canceled.

6. I have considered the arguments of counsel for the parties and examined the record.

7. So far as the claim of title by the petitioner over the land in dispute is concerned, it is against the Gaon Sabha as well as State of U.P. The Consolidation Officer is the competent authority to decide the right and title of the parties over the land in dispute. Therefore, the matter relating to cancellation of patta has nothing to do with the claim of the petitioner in respect of the title over it. The Additional Collector was however prima facie satisfied that the land in dispute was recorded as banjar/jungle land as such Gaon Sabha was competent to grant patta of the land in dispute. There is no illegality in it. The order of Additional Collector is in the summary proceeding and is not relevant in the title proceeding,which is pending before Consolidation Officer.

8. So far as the proceeding relating to cancellation of patta is concerned, the Additional Collector found that the patta was granted in favour of the respondents on the resolution of Land Management Committee dated 10.06.1981 and has been approved by Sub-Divisional Officer on 20.12.1992. Due to complaint, some time