Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2021 Supreme(All) 266

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
RAJNISH KUMAR, J.
Hari Nam Singh & Ors. - Appellant
Versus
D.D.C., Unnao Camp At Lucknow & Ors. - Respondents
Consolidation No.543, 862 of 2006
Decided on : 23-03-2021

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Nirankar Nath Jaiswal, Prashant Jaiswal
For the Respondent: C.S.C., R.N. Gupta, Ramesh Kumar Srivastava

Point of Law: Rejecting title of on trees and boring well - land in dispute belongs to Gram Samaj therefore even if the orders passed by the lower authorities were not sustainable and quashed, no fruitful purpose would have been served by remanding the case when the Revisional Authority itself has authority to pass the order under the statute.

Headnote:
U.P. Tenancy Act - Section 205 - U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 - Sections 18 (1) (e), 11(1), 9-A(2), 11(C) and 48 - notice - Objection claiming the land - Remove the entry of Usar/Banzar - Petitioners in Writ Petition and opposite parties no.5 to 8 in Writ Petition No. learned counsel for opposite party no.2 in Writ Petition No. - Office of learned Chief Standing Counsel has accepted notice for opposite party no.1 in Writ Petition No. and for opposite parties no.1 to 3 in Writ Petition –
Finding of the Court:
Authority after considering pleadings and evidence has found land in dispute belongs to Gram Samaj even if orders passed by lower authorities were not sustainable and quashed, no fruitful purpose would have been served by remanding case when Revisional Authority itself has authority to pass order under statute - Court is of considered opinion there is no illegality or error in impugned order passed by Deputy Director of Consolidation - Writ petitions are misconceived and devoid of any merit –
Result: Writ petitions are dismissed

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard, Shri Prashant Jaiswal, learned counsel for the petitioners in Writ Petition No.543 (Cons) of 2006 and opposite parties no.5 to 8 in Writ Petition No.862 (Cons) of 2006 (here-in-after referred as the petitioners), Shri Ramesh Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 in Writ Petition No.543 (Cons) of 2006 and petitioner in Writ Petition No.862 (Cons) of 2006 (here-in-after referred as the opposite party no.2) and Shri Dilip Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the Gaon Sabha in both the writ petitions. The office of the learned Chief Standing Counsel has accepted notice for opposite party no.1 in Writ Petition No.543 (Cons) of 2006 and for opposite parties no.1 to 3 in Writ Petition No.862 (Cons) of 2006.

2. The Writ Petition No.543 (Cons) of 2006 has been filed challenging the judgment and order dated 20.05.2006 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation and Writ Petition No. 862 (Cons) of 2006 challenging the same judgment and order dated 20.05.2006 to the extent of rejecting the title of the petitioners on trees and boring well as well as directing the Plot No.798 to be recorded in the name of Gaon Sabha. The dispute in Writ Petition No.543 (Cons) of 2006 relates to Plot Nos.642, 798 and 509 whereas the dispute in Writ Petition No.862 (Cons) of 2006 relates only to the extent of half share in Plot No.798.

3. On publication of records the father of the petitioners late Mahipal Singh had filed objection claiming the land of the Plot Nos.642, 798, 853/1, 853/2, 540 and 509 as his grove land and under his occupation and possession since the time prior to Zamidari Abolition. The Assistant Consolidation Officer transmitted it to the Consolidation Officer on an application moved by the petitioners. The Consolidation Officer after considering the objection and the evidence adduced before it rejected the claim of the petitioners in regard to Plot Nos.853 and 540 and allowed in regard to Plot Nos.642, 798 and 509 and declared him as grove holder Bhumidhar with transferable rights under Section 205 of U.P. Tenancy Act read with Section 18 (1) (e) of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (here-in-after referred as Act of 1953) since 1362 Fasli and directed to remove the entry of Usar/Banzar and record the name of the petitioners in the revenue records by means of the order dated 07.02.1996. On an application moved by the petitioners, under Rule 109-A of the Consolidation of Holdings Rules, 1954 (here-in-after referred as Rules of 1954), the Consolidation Officer directed to make entry in the revenue records by means of the order dated 13.02.1998.

4. The opposite party no.2, Barlam Singh filed an application for recall of the order dated 13.02.1998 passed on the application under Rule 109-A. The application was rejected by means of the order dated 08.07.2004. Being aggrieved the opposite party no.2 filed Appeal No.1548 under Section 11(1) of the Act of 1953 before the Settlement Officer of Consolidation which was dismissed by means of the order dated 08.12.2004. The opposite party no.2 had also preferred an application for recall of the order dated 07.02.1996 passed under Section 9 (A)(2) of the Act of 1953 by the Consolidation Officer, which was rejected on 09.11.2004. The opposite party no.2 preferred three revisions before the Deputy Director of Consolidation. The Deputy Director of Consolidation, after considering the revisions and the material on records found that the land in dispute is of the Gram Samaj which was not disputed by the parties, allowed the revisions partly by means of the order dated 20.05.2006 in the interest of the Gram Sabha and directed the Plot Nos.642, 798 and 509 to be recorded in the account of the Gram Sabha as it was recorded earlier. Hence, the present writ petitions were filed challenging the same.

5. Submission of learned counsel for the petitioners was that the petitioners had filed the objections under Section 9(A) 2 of the Act of 1953 and the evidence was also a