IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Chandra Kumar Rai, J.
Shanti Swaroop Sharma – Petitioner
Versus
State Of U.P. And Others - Respondents
WRIT - B No. - 980 of 2022
Decided On : 17-08-2022
Consolidation of Holdings - Village-Zewar, Pargana and Tehsil-Zewar, District-Gautambudh Nagar - U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, Section-4, 42A, 52 - The court discussed the provisions of Section-4, 42A, and 52 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, and their application in the consolidation operation for disputed plots. The court emphasized that the order of the Consolidation Officer dated 02.02.2013, which had not been stayed, recalled, or set aside by any Court, formed the basis of the proceeding.
Fact of the Case:
The case involved a dispute over the demarcation of plots in a consolidation operation under the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner had no legal right to intervene in the proceeding regarding the disputed plots, as the order of the Consolidation Officer dated 02.02.2013 had not been stayed, recalled, or set aside by any Court.
Issues: The main issue was whether the petitioner had the legal right to challenge the demarcation of disputed plots in the consolidation operation.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that since the petitioner had no legal right to intervene in the proceeding, and the order of the Consolidation Officer had not been stayed, recalled, or set aside, no interference was required against the impugned order.
Final Decision: The writ petition filed by the petitioner was dismissed, and no order as to costs was given.
JUDGMENT :
1. Heard Mr. Prem Prakash Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 4, Mr. Ashwani Kumar Sachan, learned counsel for respondent Nos.6, 7 and 8 and Mr. Sunil Kumar Singh, learned counsel for respondent No.5 Gaon Sabha.
2. The brief facts of the case are that Village-Zewar, Pargana and Tehsil-Zewar, District-Gautambudh Nagar was notified under Consolidation operation by way of notification under Section-4 of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act published in the year 1973. After finalization of provisional consolidation scheme old Plot No.47/1 area 0.1260 hectare new No.42 area 0.1260 hectare was recorded as Manure Pit, plot No.47/1 area 0.818 hectare new number 43 area 0.818 hectare was recorded as Harizan Abadi and Chak No.975 new No. 46 area 1.2920 was recorded as Bhumidhari of respondent Nos.6 to 10 (Prem Chand and others) village was denotified under Section 52 of U.P.C.H. Act on 23.05.1992. One Lakhan Lal Sharma filed a complaint on 23.04.2010 in respect of Plot No.42 (old No.47/3) against which respondent No.6 filed an objection before Consolidation Officer on 05.08.2011, Consolidation Officer treated the objection under Section 42A of U.P.C.H. Act vide order dated 02.02.2013 and accepted the amendment chart and map submitted by A.C.O. by which amendment was made in respect to plot No.42 (manure pit), plot No. 43 (Harijan Abadi) and plot No. 44/ 46 (Chak No.975). Against the order dated 02.02.2013 petitioner filed an amendment application on 13.01.2017 respondent Nos. 6 to 10 filed an application dated 25.05.2018 for demarcation of pond according to map and revenue record.
3. Respondent Nos. 6 to 10 filed a civil Misc. Writ-C No.35378 of 2018 which was disposed of vide order dated 25.10.2018 to decide the representation of the petitioner within two months accordingly District Magistrate vide order dated 31.01.2020 directed the Tehsildar to demarcate plot No.46 in compliance of the order dated 02.02.2003 passed by Consolidation Officer. Petitioner filed a recall/restoration application dated 07.03.2020 before District Magistrate/Collector for setting aside the order dated 31.01.2020. Petitioner filed a Civil Misc. Writ-B No.1598 of 2020 which was disposed of vide order dated 27.07.2021 directing the District Magistrate to decide the application dated 07.03.2020 if still pending and if there is no legal impediment in deciding the same within period of six months. District Magistrate vide order dated 30.12.2021 disposed of the matter considering the recall application dated 07.03.2020 filed by petitioner. Hence this writ petition on behalf of petitioner for following relief:
(b) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing District Magistrate, District- Gautam Budh Nagar/Collector i.e. respondent No.2 to decide the Recall/Restoration Application dated 07.03.2020 against the order dated 321.01.2020 within a stipulated period as directed by this Hon'ble Court.
(c) issue any other writ, order or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of the case.
(d) to award the cost of the writ petition to the petitioner."
4. This Court directed the Standing Counsel to obtain instruction in the matter vide orders dated 18.07.2022 and 04.08.2022. Learned Standing Counsel placed the instruction dated 16.08.2022 before the Court on 17.08.2022 which is taken on record, the parawise instruction of the State is as follows:
1- xzke tsoj ckaxj fLFkr [kljk la[;k 42 [kkn ds xढ~ढs ds :i es vafdr lkoZtfud mi;ksx dh Hkwfe gS] [kljk la[;k 43 Js.kh 5 ds vUrxZr vafdr uohu ijrh dh Hkwfe gSA [kljk la[;k 46 jdobZ 1-2920 gs0 laØe.kh; Hkwfe ds :i es izsepUnz vkfn ds uke vaf
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.
The Court affirmed that a guardian can effectively represent minors in administrative proceedings, and the Consolidation Officer has jurisdiction to rectify land allotments based on clerical errors, ....
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 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.
The court upheld the legality of the consolidation process, confirming that the Settlement Officer acted within jurisdiction and properly recorded findings regarding the division of the disputed plot....
The court affirmed that disputes regarding consolidation schemes must be resolved through appellate remedies, and title disputes among estate holders are to be adjudicated by civil courts, not under ....
Misuse of legal process, failure to prove adverse possession, unauthorized property transfer.
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.