Back
2016 Supreme(All) 3112
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Anjani Kumar Mishra, J.
Mahaveer Singh - Appellant
Versus
D.D.C. and Others - Respondent
WritB No. 35470 of 2011 and WritB No. 49783 of 2012 with WritB No. 54933 of 2015
Decided On : 12-07-2016
For the Petitioner:- Pramod Kumar Pandey, Sanjay Rai Advocate.
For the Respondent:- C.S.C., Manoj Kumar, Advocate.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that forest land cannot be allotted in the chak of the petitioner during consolidation operations.
Headnote:
lease - Land Allotment - Consolidation of Holdings Act - 48(3) - 13.04.2011, 23.04.2011, 26.05.2012 - The court discussed the lease of land, consolidation operations, fraudulent orders, and the allocation of forest land. The court found that the allotment of forest land in the chak of the petitioner was illegal and directed the consolidation authorities to reconsider the claim of the petitioner.
Fact of the Case:
The case involved the lease of land, consolidation operations, fraudulent orders, and the allocation of forest land.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the allotment of forest land in the chak of the petitioner was illegal and directed the consolidation authorities to reconsider the claim of the petitioner.
Issues: The issues involved the legality of the allotment of forest land, the lease of land, and the consolidation operations.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that any land recorded as forest land cannot be the subject matter of consolidation operations and therefore cannot be allotted in the chak of the petitioner.
Final Decision: Writ petition No.35470 of 2011 was dismissed as infructuous. Writ petition No.49783 of 2012 was allowed and the order dated 26.05.2012 impugned therein was quashed. Writ petition No.54933 of 2015 stands disposed of in terms of the directions/observations contained herein-above.
Anjani Kumar Mishra, J. –
These three writ petitions contain common facts and therefore with the consent of the parties they have been heard and are being decided together.
2. I have heard Sri Pramod Kumar Pandey for the petitioner in all three writ petitions and Sri Sachidanand Tripathi for the respondent No.3 in writ petition no.49783 of 2012 and learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents in all the writ petitions.
3. The facts relevant in these writ petitions briefly stated are that one J.N. Sahai is alleged to have been granted a lease of plot No.53 area 3 acres and plot no.5324 area 0.17 acre in the year 1973.
4. It appears that proceedings for cancellation of the lease were initiated and the Additional District Magistrate vide order dated 10.09.1981 cancelled the lease on the ground that the claims of eligible persons have been over looked.
5. Against this order, a revision was filed before the Commissioner. The Commissioner referred the matter to the Board of Revenue. The Board of Revenue vide order dated 16.05.1989 set aside the order dated 10.09.1981 and remanded the matter back for a fresh decision.
6. While the matter was pending. Consequent to the order of remand passed by the Board of Revenue, the son of the lessee, Moon Axmus Sahai, who had been mutated on the death of his father, sold the land in question to the petitioner. The petitioner is alleged to have been mutated on the basis of the sale deed in his favour executed sometime in the year 2005.
7. The Additional District Magistrate vide order dated 29.06.2006 affirmed the allotment in favour of J.N. Sahai.
8. Against this order, a revision was filed by Balister Singh, respondent no.4, in writ petition no.49783 of 2004 and respondent no.6 in writ petition no.35470 of 2011. This revision was allowed. The order dated 29.06.2006 passed by the Additional District Magistrate and the matter remanded back for fresh consideration. The revision was allowed primarily on the ground that the land which has been leased out to J.N. Sahai and earlier been leased to the father of the Balister Singh, and therefore, was not vacant land.
9. It appears that in the meantime, the consolidation operations started. In consolidation operations, a chak No.1804 appears to have been carved out in the name of Mahavir Singh, the petitioner in these writ petitions.
10. It appears that during the consolidation operations, some fraudulent orders were prepared whereby certain land recorded as forest was allotted in the chak of the various parties in the year 2010. A large number of orders passed were set aside on the ground that the entries had been made in the revenue records on the basis of fraudulent orders whereby the holding of the tenure holders, increased by more than 50%. The orders were therefore set aside holding them to be fraudulent in 2010.
11. Thereafter a complaint was made by Mahaveer Singh as also by a Corporator.
12. In so far as, the application of the petitioner is concerned, it was alleged that on account of the fraudulent entries, the petitioner chak holder No.1804 was entitled to land which was not available on the spot. A prayer was therefore made that he be compensated for this short fall by allotment of plot no.5105/6 in his chak. An order in this effect came to be passed on 13.04.2011. Writ petition No. 35470 of 2011 have been filed seeking a writ of mandamus for compliance of this order dated 13.04.2011 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Farrukhabad, under Section 48 (3) of the Consolidation of Holdings Act.
13. It appears that by the order dated 13.04.2011, the chak of the Blister Singh was also effected. He therefore, filed restoration application against this order as also a writ petition. The restoration application was allowed vide order dated 26.05.2012 and the order dated 13.04.2011 was set aside. It is this order dated 26.05.2012 which is impugned in the writ petition No.49783 of 2012.
14. It also appears that on the restoration application w
