Point of Law: Rights of gram panchayat - There is no absolute right given to Gram Panchayat with regard to ownership of property and that vesting is only confined to direction, management and control and that too, till such time as State Government requires.

JUDGMENT :

Rajnish Kumar, J.

1. Heard, Shri Ajay Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Dilip Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the Gaon Sabha/opposite party no.4 and learned Standing Counsel. None appeared for the private respondents.

2. This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed challenging the judgment and order dated 06.03.1979, 19.07.1978 and 09.09.1977, passed by opposite parties no.1 to 3 respectively.

3. The dispute relates to the plot nos.352 and 353 which were recorded as Talab in the basic year khatauni and plot nos.351, 354, 409 and 410 recorded as Banjar in basic year Khatauni. The land in question is situated in village Palti Khera, Pargana Sareni, Tehsil Dalmau, District Raebareli. The consolidation proceedings initiated in the year 1968. The petitioner i.e. late Ayodhya had filed an objection under Section 9 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act in respect of the aforesaid plots claiming as his grove on which more than 300 trees were planted by him and his ancestors with the consent of the landlord and he is in possession over the same for the last over 50 years. Two more objections were filed by Shri Anoop Singh and Shri Sheo Singh claiming to be grove holders of the said plots, in dispute. All the three objections were forwarded to the Consolidation Officer, who partly allowed the objection of late Ayodhya vide judgment and order dated 28.07.1969. Other two objections were rejected. Both the parties preferred appeals which were decided by a common judgment and order dated 30.04.1970 by means of which the appeal of Sheo Singh and others was rejected while the appeal of Late Ayodhya was allowed and the case was remanded to the Consolidation Officer for deciding afresh after making spot inspection. In pursuance thereof the Consolidation Officer made spot inspection on 03.04.1972 and partly allowed the objection of Late Ayodhya vide judgment and order dated 22.04.1972.

4. Late Ayodhya as well as Gaon Sabha challenged the judgment and order dated 22.04.1972 in appeal before the Settlement Officer Consolidation. Both the appeals were decided by a common judgment and order dated 26.09.1974 and the order dated 22.04.1972 of the Consolidation Officer was set aside. The case was remanded with a direction that the Consolidation Officer shall make an inquiry after spot inspection to ascertain as to which of the trees were planted prior to Zamindari Abolition and what was their nature at that time. After remand the Consolidation Officer decided the case afresh by means of order dated 19.09.1977 after spot inspection and rejected the objection of late Ayodhya and directed that the entry of basic year would continue. The Consolidation Officer held that the land in question is of the Gaon Sabha and late Ayodhya is not its bhumidhar.

5. Late Ayodhya filed an appeal against the order dated 19.09.1977. The appeal was partly allowed by means of the judgment and order dated 18.07.1978 after spot inspection made by the Assistant Settlement Officer consolidation holding late Ayodhya to be bhumidhar of plot nos.409 and 410 and objection in respect of remaining plots was rejected. Aggrieved by the appellate order late Ayodhya preferred a revision which was dismissed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation by means of judgment and order dated 06.03.1979. Hence the present writ petition was filed. During pendency of this writ petition Ayodhya died, hence the present petitioners were substituted.

6. Submission of learned counsel for the petitioners was that after remand by the appellate authority by means of order dated 26.09.1974 the Consolidation Officer, without making local inspection and without giving opportunity to the petitioners, rejected the objection of the petitioners against the direction issued by the appellate authority, which could not have been done. He further submitted that the land in question was allotted to late Ayodhya by means of resolution dated 17.11.1963 passed by th