Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
RAJAN ROY, J.
Mohd. Naimuddin and Others - Petitioners
Versus
Deputy Director of Consolidation Barabanki - Respondent
Consolidation No. 3438 of 1981
Decided On : 08-01-2020
U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 – Section 48 – Indian Forest Act, 1927 – Sections 4, 5, 6, 7, 17 – Father of Petitioner was granted Lease which was registered by Zamindar –Proceedings for mutation were initiated and Mutation Court vide order ordered mutation of name of petitioners’ father in respect of which Lease was granted by Zamindar – According to petitioners, based on order name of petitioners’ father came to be recorded and remained –There is not much of dispute in this regard –Notification was issued by virtue of which was leased out in their favour by Zamindar and consequently was recorded in their name vide order of Mutation Court were declared that land apart from other land mentioned in notification had been decided/proposed to be constituted Reserved Forest – Accordingly, proposal was put-forth – By same notification, rejoinder affidavit of petitioners, Sub-Divisional Officer of Sub-Division concerned was appointed Forest Settlement Officers and Additional Commissioner, was empowered to hear appeals from orders of Forest Settlement Officers – According to petitioners, their father had filed objections before Forest Settlement Officer –Court finds that even if, no claim is made under Section 6 by filing an objection – Writ petition was filed in challenging order by which revision of petitioners under Section 48 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 was rejected – Another order has been challenged which had been passed by D.D.C. on review application filed by petitioners rejecting same on ground that he did not have any power of review – Held, Order of Deputy Director of Consolidation is accordingly set-aside –Revision of petitioners shall stand restored once again –Petitioners and opposite parties shall put in appearance before Deputy Director of Consolidation –Proceedings shall be held keeping in mind observations made hereinabove and also observations made by Writ Court earlier vide its judgment –Petitioners claim to have filed Lease and other documents before D.D.C. along with review application – If same are available on record same shall be taken into consideration – Otherwise it shall be open for petitioners to again file said documents if occasion so requires – It is however, made clear that claim of petitioners which is to be considered, shall be restricted –Deputy Director of Consolidation shall make earnest endeavour to complete proceedings, after remand – Writ petition allowed Partly. (Paras 25 to 29)
Facts of Case:
Father of Petitioner was granted Lease which was registered by Zamindar –Proceedings for mutation were initiated and Mutation Court vide order ordered mutation of name of petitioners’ father in respect of which Lease was granted by Zamindar – According to petitioners, based on order name of petitioners’ father came to be recorded and remained –There is not much of dispute in this regard –Notification was issued by virtue of which was leased out in their favour by Zamindar and consequently was recorded in their name vide order of Mutation Court were declared that land apart from other land mentioned in notification had been decided/proposed to be constituted Reserved Forest – Accordingly, proposal was put-forth – By same notification, rejoinder affidavit of petitioners, Sub-Divisional Officer of Sub-Division concerned was appointed Forest Settlement Officers and Additional Commissioner, was empowered to hear appeals from orders of Forest Settlement Officers – According to petitioners, their father had filed objections before Forest Settlement Officer –Court finds that even if, no claim is made under Section 6 by filing an objection – Writ petition was filed in challenging order by which revision of petitioners under Section 48 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 was rejected – Another order has been challenged which had been passed by D.D.C. on review application filed by petitioners rejecting same on ground that he did not have any power of review.
Findings of Court:
Order of Deputy Director of Consolidation is accordingly set-aside –Revision of petitioners shall stand restored once again –Petitioners and opposite parties shall put in appearance before Deputy Director of Consolidation –Proceedings shall be held keeping in mind observations made hereinabove and also observations made by Writ Court earlier vide its judgment –Petitioners claim to have filed Lease and other documents before D.D.C. along with review application – If same are available on record same shall be taken into consideration – Otherwise it shall be open for petitioners to again file said documents if occasion so requires – It is however, made clear that claim of petitioners which is to be considered, shall be restricted –Deputy Director of Consolidation shall make earnest endeavour to complete proceedings, after remand.
Result: Writ petition allowed Partly
JUDGMENT :
1. Heard Shri Aftab Ahmad, learned counsel for the petitioners, Shri Jagdish Prasad Maurya, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel and Shri Dileep Pandey, learned Standing Counsel for the State.
2. This writ petition was filed in the year 1981 challenging an order dated 25.02.1981 by which revision of the petitioners under Section 48 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act, 1953’) was rejected. Another order dated 30.04.1981 has been challenged which had been passed by D.D.C. on the review application filed by the petitioners rejecting the same on the ground that he did not have any power of review.
3. In the year 1996 the writ petition was amended and order dated 30.12.1958 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Barabanki on the appeal of the State Government under Section 17 of the Indian Forest Act, 1927 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act, 1927’) as applicable to the State of U.P. was sought to be challenged by way of an amendment which was allowed by this Court on 17.10.1996, however, during the course of argument today Shri Aftab Ahmad, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that this order has already been declared to be without jurisdiction by this Court in the earlier proceedings bearing Writ Petition No. 917 of 1972; Mohd. Mohinuddin Vs. State of U.P. and Ors. decided on 16.04.1975 which has not been put to challenge by the State and has attained finally, therefore, he does not want to press this part of the relief relating to the validity of the order dated 30.12.1958.
4. In view of the above, this part of the relief claimed in the writ petition is not pressed.
5. From the records and during the course of arguments it comes out that according to the petitioners, their father was granted a Lease which was registered on 31.07.1951 by the Zamindar in respect of certain Gatas of land including Gata No. 1447/1 and 1448/1. In pursuance to the aforesaid Lease, proceedings for mutation were initiated and Mutation Court vide order dated 30.05.1952 ordered mutation of the name of petitioners’ father in respect of the Gatas in respect of which Lease was granted by the Zamindar. According to the petitioners, based on the aforesaid order the name of petitioners’ father came to be recorded in Khatauni of 1359 Fasli and remained so recorded till 1366 Fasli. It is worthwhile to mention that the Lease dated 31.07.1951 is referable to 1359 Fasli, as, the Fasli year starts from 1st of July. There is not much of a dispute in this regard. On 11.10.1955 a notification was issued under Section 4 of the Indian Forest Act, 1927, by virtue of which Gatas bearing No. 1447/1 and 1448/1, which, according to the petitioners, was leased out in their favour by the Zamindar and consequently was recorded in their name vide order of the Mutation Court dated 30.05.1952, were declared that the said land apart from the other land mentioned in the notification had been decided/proposed to be constituted a Reserved Forest. Accordingly, a proposal was put-forth. By the same notification, a copy of which is annexed as Annexure No. 19 to the rejoinder affidavit of the petitioners, the Sub-Divisional Officer of Sub-Division concerned was appointed as Forest Settlement Officers under Section 1(o) of Section 4 of the Act, 1927 and Additional Commissioner, Lucknow Faizabad Division was empowered to hear appeals from orders of the Forest Settlement Officers. According to the petitioners, their father had filed objections under Section 6 of the Act, 1927 before the Forest Settlement Officer i.e. the Sub-Divisional Officer concerned of District-Barabanki, although, learned counsel for the State says that no such objection was filed. Be that as it may, the Court finds that under Section 7 of the Act, 1927 read with Section 9 thereof, even if, no claim is made under Section 6 by filing an objection. Forest Settlement Officer could ascertain from the records of the Government and evidence of any person likely t
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
