Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
MANISH KUMAR, J.
Ram Sukh And Others – Appellants
Versus
Deputy Director Of Consolidation, Sultanpur And Others – Respondent
Writ - B No. - 518 of 2024
Decided on : 15-05-2024
CONSOLIDATION - LAND DISPUTE - Consolidation and Holdings Act, 1953 - Sections 9A(2), 52; Consolidation and Holding Rules, 1954 - Rule 109A(1) - The court discussed the provisions of the Consolidation and Holdings Act, 1953, particularly Sections 9A(2) and 52, which govern the filing of objections and the finality of consolidation proceedings. The court interpreted these sections to affirm that the authorities had jurisdiction to correct entries in the revenue records even after the notification under Section 52, as it was a continuation of proceedings rather than a new initiation. The court emphasized the importance of following due process in consolidation operations and the finality of decisions made under the Act.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners sought to quash the revisional and appellate orders regarding the consolidation of land Gata No. 2774, claiming their names were wrongfully removed from the revenue records. The dispute involved co-tenancy and the validity of entries made in the Khatauni during consolidation proceedings.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the appellate and revisional authorities had acted within their jurisdiction and that the petitioners had not challenged the earlier orders that led to the removal of their names. The court concluded that the entries made in compliance with the earlier orders were valid and did not constitute a fresh proceeding.
Issues: Whether the appellate and revisional authorities exceeded their jurisdiction in altering the entries in the revenue records after the notification under Section 52 of the Act, and whether the petitioners had any valid grounds to challenge the orders.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the actions taken by the authorities were a continuation of the consolidation proceedings and not a new initiation. The court emphasized that the petitioners had failed to appeal against the earlier orders that had removed their names, thus affirming the finality of those decisions.
Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed as devoid of merit, affirming the decisions of the appellate and revisional authorities.
JUDGMENT :
Manish Kumar, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for petitioner as well as Shri Hemant Kumar Pandey, learned State Counsel.
2. The present writ petition has been preferred for quashing of the impugned revisional order dated 12.04.2024 passed by respondent no. 1, Deputy Director of Consolidation and impugned appellate order dated 04.03.2024 passed by respondent no. 2 i.e. Settlement Officer Consolidation, District Sultanpur.
3 The learned counsel for the respondent nos. 8 and 9 has stated that it would not be necessary to file counter affidavit and the matter may be heard at this stage itself.
4. Learned counsel for petitioner has submitted that the dispute is with regard to Gata No. 2774 (new number) and the old number was Gata No. 1652, Area-2 Biswa. The petitioners and respondents were co-tenant on the above mentioned gata number.
5. It is further submitted that initially Ram Kalap and RajNath Singh, son of Sahdev, i.e. respondent nos. 8 and 9 were the co-tenant of 1 Biswa and on another 1 Biswa, the ancestors of the petitioners namely late Urai and late Ram Kishan along with their brother Bhagirathi i.e. fathers of respondent nos. 3, 4 and 5.
6. It is further submitted that the names of the petitioners along with the family members of late Sahdev were entered in the Khatauni as co-tenants on the Gata No. 2774 and the names of the co-tenants were intact at the time of consolidation operations.
7. It is further submitted that the names of the ancestors of petitioners and respondent nos. 3 to 7 were entered in Form C.H-45, the consolidation proceedings were finalised and notification under Section 52 of the Consolidation and Holdings Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred as Act, 1953) was published/notified.
8. It is further submitted that after the denotification under Section 52, an application was preferred by respondent no. 8 Ram Kalap before the Deputy Director of Consolidation that the proceedings have been finalized without deciding the objections preferred by respondent no. 8 against Form CH-4. The said application preferred by respondent no. 8 was rejected by order dated 22.05.2007. Within four days of rejection of the said application, a recall application was preferred on 26.05.2007 by respondent no. 8, the same was allowed by order dated 16.06.2008 a reference was made and referred to the Consolidation Officer to decide objections against Form C.H.-4 preferred by respondent no. 8
9. Thereafter, the proceedings had started afresh with a reference to the Consolidation Officer to a limited extent to consider the objections filed against Form C.H-4 of Ram Kalap, and the Consolidation Officer decided the matter to the limited extent of reference i.e the Consolidation Officer had decided the matter and has allowed the application by order dated 20.09.2021 and has enhanced the area from 1 Biswa to 2 Biswa as that was the only objection against Form C.H.-4 by respondent no. 8. Against which respondent no. 8 alone had preferred an appeal before the Settlement Officer Consolidation disputing about the entry of the name of the petitioners along with respondent nos. 3 to 7. The Settlement Officer Consolidation had allowed the appeal by order dated 04.03.2024 and had given a finding that the father of respondent nos. 3 to 5 i.e. late Bhagirathi had executed a sale deed in favour of widow of Sahdev in the year 1987 of his share, so his name has wrongly been entered in Form C.H.-45.
10. Against the said order a revision was preferred by petitioner no. 5, Smt. Sita, wife of Maharajdeen, the son of late Ram Kishan and others which was also rejected by impugned order dated 12.04.2024.
11. The Appellate Authority as well as the Revisional Authority had exceeded their jurisdiction by deciding the matter relating to the title/rights of the petitioner along with respondent nos. 3 to 7.
12. On the other hand, Sri V.S. Tripathi, learned counsel for the caveator has filed his Vakalatnama on behalf of respondent no. 9 also, which is taken on record and ha
The court established that under the Consolidation and Holdings Act, 1953, authorities retain the power to correct entries in revenue records even after the finalization of consolidation proceedings,....
Personal action dies with the death of the person on the maxim action personalis moritur cum persona. But this operates only in a limited class of actions Ex delicto, such as action for damages for d....
Tenure Land - Once a dispute was recorded by Assistant Consolidation Officer and on objection being filed same was referred to Consolidation Officer, it is incumbent to Consolidation Officer to decid....
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.
Point of Law : A compromise having been filed before the Consolidation Officer, was not verified in terms of Rule 25A of the Rules of 1954, where it has been specifically provided that the Assistant ....
The Deputy Director of Consolidation must adhere to remand orders and consider all relevant records and admissions before making decisions regarding co-tenancy rights.
The jurisdiction under Section 42 of the Consolidation of Holdings Act is limited to correcting clerical errors and cannot be used to alter finalized consolidation schemes or adjudicate disputed titl....
Jurisdiction under Section 42 of the Act is limited to clerical corrections and cannot alter finalized consolidation schemes or adjudicate disputed titles.
Jurisdiction under Section 42 of the East Punjab Holdings Act is limited to clerical corrections and cannot adjudicate title disputes, which are reserved for Civil Courts.
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
