SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2015 Supreme(All) 3945

ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Ram Surat Ram (Maurya), J.
Satpal - Appellant
Versus
Collector/District Deputy Director of Consolidation, & 2 Others - Respondent
Writ B No. 45468 of 2015
Decided On : 09-10-2015

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner:-Pradeep Kumar Rai
For the Respondent:- C.S.C.,Rajesh Yadav

The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement to prove possession and right under Section 122-B (4-F) before the consolidation authorities, and the jurisdiction of the authorities to confer rights if the right is proved.

Headnote:

U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 - Possession - Section 122-B (4-F) - Section 9-A - Section 11 - Section 11-C - Section 24 - Section 122-B (4-E) - Section 122-B (4-F) - Section 4 - Section 12 - Section 195 - U.P. Act No. 35 of 1976 - U.P. Act No. 24 of 1986 - U.P. Act No. 7 of 1997 - U.P. Act No. 11 of 2002 - U.P. Act No. 38 of 2007 - Smt. K. Devi Vs. Joint Director of Consolidation and others, 1973 ALJ 395 (DB) - Ram Vriksha Vs. Assistant Director of Consolidation and others, 2005 (99) RD 295 - Manorey @ Manohar Vs. Board of Revenue, U.P., 2003 (94) RD 538 (SC) - Brahmi Vs. D.M. Muzaffar Nagar, 2002 (3) AWC 1848

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner filed a writ petition to quash the orders of Settlement Officer Consolidation and Deputy Director of Consolidation, passed in title proceedings under U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953. The case involved a dispute over possession and right over a plot of land in a village.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the petitioner failed to prove his possession over the land in dispute since before 30.06.1985. The court also held that the consolidation authorities have the jurisdiction to confer right under Section 122-B (4-F) of U.P. Act No. 1 of 1951 if the right is proved.

Issues: The issues involved the petitioner's claim of possession and right over the land, the jurisdiction of consolidation authorities to confer rights under Section 122-B (4-F), and the cut-off date for acquiring rights under the Act.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the petitioner's right had to be decided on the date of notification under Section 4 of the Act. The court also emphasized the importance of proving possession and right under Section 122-B (4-F) before the consolidation authorities.

Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed as the petitioner failed to prove his possession and right over the land in dispute, and the consolidation authorities were found to have the jurisdiction to confer rights under Section 122-B (4-F) if the right is proved.

JUDGMENT

Ram Surat Ram (Maurya),J.

1. Heard Sri Pradeep Kumar Rai, for the petitioner and Standing Counsel, for State of U.P. and Sri Rajesh Yadav, Standing Counsel for Gram Panchayat. Supplementary Affidavit filed today is taken on record.

2. The writ petition has been filed for quashing the orders of Settlement Officer Consolidation dated 24.07.2013 and Deputy Director of Consolidation dated 30.04.2015, passed in title proceedings under U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as the Act).

3. Phul Singh alias Phulla son of Rayla, father of the petitioner filed a time barred objection (registered as Case No. 3559) under Section 9-A of the Act, for recording his name as "bhumidhar with non-transferable right" over plot 1230 (area 2-5-0 bigha) of village Nanauta, pargana Rampur, district Saharanpur. It has been stated by him that the land in dispute was gaon sabha land and recorded as kallar. He had been in possession over the land in dispute since before 30.06.1985. He was agricultural labour belonging to Schedule caste and did not have more than 3.125 acre land. On the basis of possession, he acquired "bhumidhar with non-transferable right" under Section 122-B (4-F) of U.P. Act No. 1 of 1951. Consolidation Officer tried the case. The petitioner examined himself, Rajendra, Lal Singh and Prem Singh, Pradhan to prove his possession over the land in dispute since before 30.06.1985 and filed caste certificate. Consolidation Officer, by order dated 17.12.1988, held that possession of Phul Singh since before 30.06.1985 was proved from oral evidence as such he had acquired "bhumidhar with non-transferable right" under Section 122-B (4-F) of U.P. Act No. 1 of 1951. On these findings the objection was allowed and name of Phul Singh was directed to be recorded over the land in dispute. Later on valuation of plot 1320 (area 2-5-0 bigha) was allotted to the petitioner in his chak 692 on plot 1229 along with his other holding plot 1229/8. It is stated that chaks of the village were confirmed and notification under Section 24 of the Act was issued on 29.09.2005.

4. At the time of preparation of final consolidation record, Assistant Consolidation Officer found that total area of plot 1230 was 10-17-0 bigha. Land Management Committee through its resolution dated 19.06.1984 allotted an area of 10-10-0 bigha of plot 1230 to landless persons and thereafter, through resolution dated 23.11.1988 again allotted an area of 7-9-0 bigha of plot 1230. Apart from it, during consolidation, the names of various persons came to be recorded giving benefit of possession under Section 122-B (4-F) of U.P. Act No. 1 of 1951 over an area of 14-10-0 bigha. Thus total area of plot 1230 will become 32-9-0 bigha.When, he inspected the spot, he did not find possession of any persons, whose names were directed to be recorded by consolidation authorities giving benefits of Section 122-B (4-F) of U.P. Act No. 1 of 1951. On the basis of this report dated 12.06.2007, Settlement Officer Officer Consolidation registered seven appeals under Section 11 of the Act, exercising powers under Section 11-C of the Act and by order dated 24.07.2013, set aside all the orders of Consolidation Officer giving benefits of Section 122-B (4-F) of U.P. Act No. 1 of 1951 to the persons and directed for deleting their names from plot 1230.

5. Phul Singh son of Hushiyara filed a revision (registered as revision No. 712/460) and the petitioner filed a revision (registered as revision No. 713/461) from the aforesaid order, along with delay condonation application. The revisions were consolidated and heard by Deputy Director of Consolidation, who by order dated 30.04.2015 held that right under Section 122-B (4-F) can be awarded by the Collector and Additonal Collector, in view of Explanation given under Section 122-B (4-E) of the U.P. Act No. 1 of 1951. The consolidation authorities have no jurisdiction to award any right under Section 122-B (4-F). Order of Settlement Office










Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top