Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Rajeev Misra, J.
Achhaibar Yadav And Others – Petitioners
Versus
State Of U.P. And Others – Respondents
WRIT - B No. - 612, 1193, 1788, 2883, 3002 of 2022 WRIT - B No. - 1283, 18, 20, 21, 33, 249, 316, 1283 of 2023, WRIT - B No. - 927, 1092 of 2020, WRIT - B No. – 656, 1828, 2301 of 2021
Decided On : 13-10-2023
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. chronology of consolidation and complaints (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 2. objections filed by petitioners and their basis (Para 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20) |
| 3. legal standing of gb as custodian, issues stemming from their inaction. (Para 22 , 23) |
| 4. court acknowledges claims and jurisdiction issues (Para 31 , 32 , 33 , 34) |
| 5. challenges regarding complaint and jurisdiction (Para 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 41 , 42) |
| 6. reference maintenance under u.p.c.h. act (Para 43 , 44 , 45 , 46) |
| 7. discussion of legal rights and jurisdiction related to land claims. (Para 54 , 60 , 66) |
| 8. finality of the consolidation process established (Para 76 , 77 , 78) |
| 9. order quashed due to illegal proceedings (Para 94 , 95 , 96 , 97 , 98) |
JUDGMENT :
1. All these writ petitions have been filed challenging the order dated 14.01.2020 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Varanasi (hereinafter referred to as the DDC) in Reference No. 660 of 2019 (Gram Sabha Vs. Ramashray and others), under Section 48 (3) of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act (herein after referred to as the U.P.C.H. Act), Village-Rampur Pargana-Kolasala, District-Varanasi, whereby aforementioned reference has been allowed. The alleged order of the Tahsildar dated 26.05.1952 has been set aside. It has also been directed that all the plots recorded in Khata No. 585 in the Khatauni of 1366 to 1368 Fasli, as Banjar shall be re-recorded in the Banjar Khata.
2. That Village-Rampur, Pargana-Kolasala, District-Varanasi, where the land in dispute is situate was brought under Consolidation operations by means of a Gazette notification dated 09.08.1972 published under Section 4 (2) of the U.P.C.H. Act.
3. It transpires from record that no objection under Section 9 A(2) of the U.P.C.H. Act was filed by the Gaon Sabha concerned claiming right, title or interest over the land in dispute. Land in dispute, which was part of the consolidation area, was accorded valuation. No objection under section 9-B of the U.P.C.H. Act was filed by the Gaon Sabha disputing the valuation accorded to the land in dispute. As such, the land in dispute was included in the Chak Allotment Scheme. Resultantly, new tenures came to be allotted to different land holders on the land in dispute by virtue of the provisions contained in Section 19 of the U.P.C.H. Act.
4. Subsequently, village-Rampur, where the land in dispute is situate was denotified for the purposes of consolidation by means of a Gazette Notification dated 29.08.2020. The effect of the same was that consolidation operations in the village, where the land in dispute is situate came to an end.
5. During pendency of consolidation operations, an application dated 30.12.17 alleged to have been filed on behalf of most of the villagers of Village-Rampur, was submitted before the District Magistrate, Varanasi, alleging therein that the names of tenure holders, which have been fraudulently recorded on the basis of forged lease, alleged to have been executed by Bhoodan Yagya Committee over Survey Plot No. 372/1 area 10.72 acres be expunged and the said plot be rerecorded in the Banjar Khata as was previously recorded. It is apposite to mention here that the said complaint is not signed by any individual villager nor a list is appended to the same disclosing the names and signature of the villagers' who have signed the complaint. The same is manifest from the complaint itself, copy of which is on record as Annexure-1 in WRIT-B No. 612 of 2022 (Acchaibar Yadav Vs. State of U.P.). It is this complaint, which has given rise to the litigation out of which, this bunch of writ petition arises.
6. As per the aforesaid application, the dispute relates to following plots situate in Village-Rampur, Pargana-Kolasala, District-Varanasi:-
| (I) | Plot No. 372/1 | Bhoodan area 10.72 acres. |
| (II) | Plot No. 420/1 | Bhoodan ar |
The Gaon Sabha is barred from claiming title over land post finalization of consolidation operations; complaints without signatures lack validity.
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,....
The burden of proof is upon the person claiming rights over the land on the basis of adverse possession to prove that the entries in the revenue record were made in accordance with the mode and manne....
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.
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 court ruled that title objections under the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act must be decided on merit, emphasizing the need for proper jurisdiction and evidence rather than relying on alleged c....
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.
The U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act allows authorities to adjudicate on land rights even when a wrong provision is cited, as long as they possess the necessary jurisdiction.
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
