IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Chandra Kumar Rai, J.
Havaldar Singh and Others – Petitioners
Versus
District Deputy Director of Consolidation and Others – Respondents
Writ -B No. -534 of 2022
Decided On : 03-05-2023
U.P.C.H. Act - Sections 8, 48(1), 7, 12 , 4 , 38(1) , 8 and 48 - National Highways Act - Section 3G - Disbursement of the amount determined – Seeking compensation - Petitioners was recorded owner of disputed plot situated been writ petition in order to demonstrate ownership of petitioners' predecessors-in-interest - Copy have been annexed as Annexure Nos. 2, 3 and 4 to writ petition to demonstrate ownership of petitioners' predecessors-in-interest - Petitioners filed an objection under Section 8 of U.P.C.H. Act to rectify revenue entry were carved out from old plot – Held, Decree-holder to treat decree as binding between parties - Period of limitation prescribed has expired decree-holder has obtained a benefit under law of limitation to treat decree as beyond challenge, and this legal right which has accrued to the decree-holder by lapse of time should not be light heartedly disturbed - Other consideration which cannot be ignored is that if sufficient cause for excusing delay is shown discretion is given to court to condone delay and admit appeal - If sufficient cause is not proved nothing further has to be done; application for condoning delay has to be dismissed on that ground alone - Case law cited by learned Counsel for petitioner are also relevant in the matter as in judgement scope of entries of Sections 7,8 and 12 of U.P.C.H. Act as they stood prior to 1958 amendment were taken into consideration - Writ petition stands allowed
JUDGMENT :
1. Heard Mr. R.C. Singh, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. Narayan Dutt Shukla, learned Counsel for the petitioners, learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents and Mr. Rameshwar Prasad Shukla for respondent No.3, Gaon Sabha.
2. Brief facts of the case are that predecessors-in-interest of the petitioners namely Shri Laxmi Singh was recorded owner of disputed plot no. 362 situated in village-Kishundurpur, Tappa-Attaisi, Pergana-Nizamabad, Tahasil-Sadar, District-Azamgarh. Copy of Khewat of 1356 fasli to 1359 fasli of the Village Kishundaspur, Tappa Attaisi, Pargana Nizamabad Tehsil Sadar District Azamgarh has been annexed as Annexure No. 1 to the writ petition in order to demonstrate the ownership of petitioners' predecessors-in-interest. Copy of khatauni of 1356 fasli, 1359 fasli as well as khasra of 1359 fasli have been annexed as Annexure Nos. 2, 3 and 4 to the writ petition to demonstrate the ownership of the petitioners' predecessors-in-interest. Village was brought under consolidation operation on 30.10.1955 by way of notification issued under Section 4 of the U.P.C.H. Act. In the khatauni of 1362 fasli, plot no. 362 was recorded in the name of petitioners' predecessors-in-interest, the copy of khatauni of 1362 fasli has been annexed as Annexure No. 6 to the writ petition. During consolidation operation, petitioners filed an objection under Section 8 of U.P.C.H. Act to rectify the revenue entry. New plot nos. 213 ka and kha were carved out from old plot no. 362. The order dated 30.10.1955 passed by Consolidation Officer in a proceeding under Section 8 of the U.P.C.H. Act to record the plot as brick klin became final as nobody challenged the order in first consolidation operation. The first consolidation operation came to an end in the year 1962. Village was again brought under consolidation operation in the year 1981. Basic year entry remained in the name of petitioners and no objections were filed against the basic year entry which remained in the name of petitioners. Final records were accordingly prepared in the name of petitioners. New plot no. 311 ka and kha carved out from old plot no. 213. According to petitioners, new plot no. 213 ka and kha have never been pond and bhita. A four lane road is being constructed by National Highway Authority of India across the aforesaid plots, as such, there is no question that pond and bhita exist in the plot. The land in dispute was never recorded as pond either before the abolition of zamindari or after abolition of zamindari. According to petitioners their predecessors had established a brick klin in the year 1940 and the business continued till 1950. The portion of the plot in question was acquired by National Highway Authority of India by way of notification published in Hindi newspaper dated 30.6.2017. No dispute was raised by any person before the competent authority appointed under the National Highway Act 1956 accordingly award dated 31.5.2018 was made by competent authority under section 3G of the National Highways Act. Copy of the award dated 31.5.2018 has been annexed as Annexure No. 12 to the writ petition. At the time of disbursement of the amount determined under the award, a complaint has been made by the Pradhan that old plot no. 213, new plot no. 311 is a pond and bhita therefore compensation in respect of the aforementioned plot should not be disbursed. Competent Authority accordingly issued order dated 22.7.2020 that payment of compensation be deferred. Pradhan filed revision under Section 48(1) of the U.P.C.H. Act on 16.7.2020 before the Deputy Director of Consolidation to set aside the order dated 30.10.1955 in respect to plot no. 362 and record the same as pokhari and bhita. On the basis of the complaint made by Pradhan, a case no. D202015060001018 has been registered under Section 38(1) of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 for correction of revenue entry in respect to old plot no. 362 of Village Kishundaspur. Raj Narayan and Others also filed rev
Balwant Singh (Dead) Versus Jagdish Singh and Others
Dnyandeo Sabaji Naik and another Vs. Mrs. Pradnya Prakash Khadekar and Others
Kedar Nath and others Vs. Fulena and Others
Ramlal v. Rewa Coalfields Ltd.
Saleem Vs. Deputy Director of Consolidation G.B. Nagar
State of Bihar v. Kameshwar Prasad Singh (2000) 9 SCC 94 : 2000 SCC (L&S) 845
The Deputy Director of Consolidation's remand for a fresh hearing was justified to ensure fairness, given the significant delay and procedural irregularities in prior decisions.
Revisional jurisdiction under consolidation laws requires adherence to legal procedures, especially concerning time-barred claims and the provision of interim protection.
The court established that excessive delay in filing title objections under the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act cannot be condoned, especially when the petitioner was aware of the proceedings.
Objections to consolidation proceedings must be filed within statutory timelines; orders made by consolidation authorities are upheld unless shown to be illegal or lacking jurisdiction.
The Gaon Sabha is barred from claiming title over land post finalization of consolidation operations; complaints without signatures lack validity.
Refusing to condone delay can result in a meritorious matter being thrown out at very threshold and cause of justice being defeated.
The principles of natural justice require that a recorded tenure holder must be afforded an opportunity to be heard before their rights to land are altered or cancelled.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.