Back
2014 Supreme(All) 2723
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Ram Surat Ram (Maurya), J.
Dalpat - Appellant
Versus
Dy. Director of Consolidation, Camp At Kanpur and Others - Respondent
Writ -B No. - 4018 of 2006
Decided On : 02-04-2014
For the Petitioner:- L.P. Singh, Km. Rachna Tiwari
For the Respondent:- C.S.C., Gaurav Sisodia
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the revision allowing the respondents to claim additional land was based on irrelevant considerations, leading to the setting aside of the orders of the Assistant Director of Consolidation and Deputy Director of Consolidation.
Headnote:
Consolidation of Holdings Act - Chak Allotment - U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 - Section 9, Section 6, Section 4(2), Section 229-B of U.P. Act No. 1 of 1951 - Summary: The court discussed the proceedings under the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953, including the objections filed under Section 9, the issuance of notifications under Section 6 and Section 4(2), and the judgment under Section 229-B of U.P. Act No. 1 of 1951. The court also considered the possession and ownership of specific plots and the impact of previous judgments on the current dispute.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought to quash orders related to chak allotment proceedings under the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953. The respondents filed objections regarding the area of specific plots, and multiple authorities issued orders and judgments, leading to a series of appeals and revisions.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the revision allowing the respondents to claim additional land was based on irrelevant considerations and set aside the orders of the Assistant Director of Consolidation and Deputy Director of Consolidation.
Issues: The issues involved the ownership and possession of specific plots, the impact of previous judgments, and the validity of the orders and judgments issued by the authorities.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the revision allowing the respondents to claim additional land was based on irrelevant considerations and set aside the orders of the Assistant Director of Consolidation and Deputy Director of Consolidation.
Final Decision: The court allowed the writ petition, setting aside the orders of the Assistant Director of Consolidation and Deputy Director of Consolidation, and directed the Deputy Director of Consolidation to decide the chak revision of the respondents afresh in accordance with the law.
Ram Surat Ram (Maurya),J.
Heard Sri L.P. Singh, for the petitioner. In spite of written information being given to Sri Gaurav Sisodia, Advocate, who are appearing for the contesting respondents, he did not turn up for arguments.
2. The writ petition has been filed for quashing the order of Joint Director of Consolidation dated 30.04.1991 and Deputy Director of Consolidation dated 04.01.2006, arising out of chak allotment proceeding under U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as the Act).
3. The petitioner purchased plot 1152/15/4 (area 6.27 acre) of village Terha, pargana Sumerpur district Hamirpur from Matadin through sale deed dated 07.09.1971. On the basis of sale deed, his name was mutated in the khatauni 1378 F. The village was earlier placed in consolidation operation by notification dated 17.08.1972. On the village being notified under Section 9 of the Act, the objections were filed between the parties. However during pendency of the revision, notification under Section 6 was issued as such earlier proceedings were abated. Thereafter again notification under Section 4 (2) of the Act was issued in 1980. In basic consolidation records the name of the petitioner was recorded over plot 1152/15/4 (area 6.27 acre) and the names of Patirakhan and Jagroop sons of Ram Sewak were recorded over 1152/14/1 (area 1.80 acre), 1152/14/2 (area 3.98 acre). It may be mentioned that in last settlement records total area of 91.80 acre of plot 1152 was recorded. There was partition between the zamindars, in which 1/3 share i.e. 30.60 acre was recorded in the Mohal Rajaram and 2/3 share i.e. 61.20 acre was recorded in Mohal Maniram. During survey and partal total area of plot 1152 was found 88.15 acre.
4. Patirakhan and others (respondents-2 to 4) filed an objection under Section 9 of the Act, for correcting the area of plot 1152/13 and 1152/14 as 11.18 acre. It has been alleged that plots 1152/13 and 1152/14 (total area 11.18 acre) was of Mohal Maniram and was in their possession from long before abolition of zamindari. In consolidation extracts, the area of different sub-plots of 1152 have wrongly shown in which their area has been shown as 4.68 acre. Prior to consolidation, they filed Case No. 15 of 1970 for correction of the area of sub-plots of plot 1152, which was decided on 08.06.1972 but it could not be given effect to in revenue records. The petitioner contested the aforesaid objection on the ground that plot 1152/15/4 (area 6.27 acre) was of Mohal Rajaram and Matadin was its tenant. After date of vesting Matadin became its bhumidhar from whom he had purchased this plot. The respondents had nothing to do with the land falling in Mohal Rajaram. In Case No. 248/22 of 1964 Jagroop Singh Vs. Matadin decided on 14.09.1964, the respondents were found to be bhumidhar in possession of 8.08 acre alone. Apart from this area, the respondents were not in possession of any other area of plot 1152. Judgment dated 14.09.1964 was binding upon the respondents. The petitioner or Matadin were not parties in Case No. 15 of 1970 as such order dated 08.06.1972 was not binding upon them nor this order was ever given effect to. The case was tried by Consolidation Officer, who by the order dated 21.06.1982 dismissed the objection of the respondents. The appeal filed by the respondents was also dismissed by order dated 12.10.1984. However the revision was allowed by order dated 06.12.1986 and the matter was remanded to Consolidation Officer.
5. After remand, the respondents examined Patirakhan and filed their documentary evidence. The petitioner examined Dalpat and filed his documents. Tenure holders of other sub-plots of 1152 namely Ram Sanehi and Chhote Lal were also examined and filed their documentary evidence. The Consolidation Officer, by order dated 01.12.1989, held that in khatauni 1375 F- 1377 F plots 1152/14/1 (area 1.80 acre) and 1152/14/2 (area 3.98 acre) were recorded in the names of the respondents and plot 1152/15
