Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD (LUCKNOW BENCH)
RAJNISH KUMAR, J.
Chheda Khan & Others - Appellant
Versus
D.D.C.Raebareli & Others - Respondents
Consolidation No.97 of 1998
Decided on : 27-01-2021
Revision - Consolidation of Holdings Act - Section 48 - Summary
Fact of the Case:
The petition challenges the order allowing revisions under Section 48 of the Consolidation of Holdings Act without issuing notices or affording opportunity to the petitioners. The disputed lands were leased to the petitioners, and objections were filed by the opposite parties. A report alleged forged entries in the revenue records, leading to the revisions.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the revisions were decided without affording the affected parties an opportunity of being heard, in violation of Section 48 of the Act. The impugned order lacked reasons and was passed in flagrant violation of the principles of natural justice and the Act.
Issues: The key issue was whether the revisions under Section 48 could be decided without issuing notices and affording opportunity to the affected parties.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the revisions should have been decided after affording the parties an opportunity of being heard, as mandated by Section 48 of the Act. It emphasized the importance of giving reasons for decisions and the need for transparency and fairness in decision-making.
Final Decision: The impugned order was set aside, and the opposite party was directed to decide the revisions afresh in accordance with the law and the court's observations.
JUDGMENT :
Rajnish Kumar, J.
1. Heard Sri A.K. Jauhari, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri Mahendra Kumar Mishra, learned Standing counsel for the opposite party nos.1, 2 and 3 and Sri Dilip Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the opposite party no.4.
2. This petition has been filed challenging the order dated 10.12.1997 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation(hereinafter referred as D.D.C.), Raibareily by means of which the revision under Section 48 of the Consolidation of Holdings Act has been allowed without issuing notices or affording opportunity to the petitioners.
3. The facts, for adjudication of the instant writ petition as emerged from the pleadings, are that the lease of the disputed lands was granted to the petitioners. The opposite party nos. 6 and 9 had filed objections under Section 9-A(2) of the Consolidation of Holdings Act, which were allowed by the consolidation officer after affording opportunity to adduce the evidence and after considering the same by means of the orders dated 11.12.1996. Thereafter the Gaon Sabha had filed an application for restoration. Considering the same, the order dated 11.12.1996 was stayed by means of the order dated 31.12.1996. Challenging the same, the revisions were filed. In the meantime, Gaon Sabha had also filed the appeals against the orders dated 11.12.1996. The appeals were rejected by means of the order dated 29.10.1997. The Gaon Sabha had filed a revision against the same, which was registered as Revision No.1150 of 1997.
4. A report dated 08.12.1997 was submitted by the Consolidation officer to the effect that the entries in the name of the petitioners in the revenue records are forged because the land in dispute is recorded as 'Oosar' in the Khatauni. On the basis of the said report, three revisions were registered under Section 48 of Consolidation of Holdings Act. The D.D.C., after perusing the report and the records, allowed the revisions without issuing notices to the petitioners on the ground that for cancelling the forged entries, parties need not be informed, as has been held by the Board of Revenue as well as the High Court and set aside the order dated 29.10.1997 passed by the Settlement Officer Consolidation and order dated 11.12.1996 passed by the Consolidation Officer. Hence the present writ petition has been filed.
5. Submission of learned counsel for the petitioners is that the petitioners had got the lease of the lands in dispute from the Gaon Sabha. Objections filed by the petitioner nos. 6 and 9 were allowed by the Consolidation Officer and the appeal filed against the same was dismissed by the Settlement Officer Consolidation, which was challenged in revision. In the meantime a report was submitted on 08.12.1997 by the Consolidation Officer before the Deputy Director of Consolidation alleging that the entries made in the name of the petitioners are forged, on the basis of which also the revision was registered. He further submitted that the report was submitted without affording any opportunity to the petitioners and the Deputy Director of Consolidation also without issuing notice or affording any opportunity to the petitioners allowed the revisions without authority of law and the order passed by the Settlement Officer Consolidation and Consolidation Officer have been set aside in an arbitrary and illegal manner, which could not have been done.
6. Learned Standing Counsel on the basis of report submitted by the Consolidation Officer submitted that it was found that the entries made in favour of the petitioners are forged one and for forged entries, there is no requirement of issuing any notice or affording any opportunity to the concerned. Therefore the impugned order has rightly been passed in accordance with law and it does not suffer from any illegality or error.
7. Learned counsel for the Gaon Sabha does not dispute that the order has been passed without affording any opportunity. However, he submitted that the entries were made without approva
The main legal point established is that revisions under Section 48 of the Consolidation of Holdings Act must be decided after affording the parties an opportunity of being heard, and the authority m....
The Deputy Director of Consolidation under Section 48 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953, cannot re-appreciate evidence or substitute findings made by subordinate authorities unless empo....
Personal action dies with the death of the person on the maxim action personalis moritur cum persona. But this operates only in a limited class of actions Ex delicto, such as action for damages for d....
The jurisdiction of consolidation authorities under the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953, post-notification under Section 52(1) is ambiguous and requires clarification by a larger bench.
Parties must show vested interest to contest consolidation proceedings; the Revisional Authority has the power to rectify procedural lapses under Section 48 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act,....
The revisional authority must not assume fact-finding roles beyond their jurisdiction; adequate evidence and adherence to legal standards are necessary for adverse possession claims.
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
