The court affirmed that a valid party must be aggrieved for legal standing, particularly regarding consolidation and property rights under the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act.

JUDGMENT

Saurabh Lavania, J.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and Shri Hemant Kumar Pandey, learned Standing Counsel for State-respondents.

2. By means of the present petition, the petitioners have assailed the order dated 06.10.2022 (Annexure No. 1 to the petition) passed by respondent no.2/Deputy Director of Consolidation/Additional District Magistrate (F/R), Lakhimpur-Kheri (in short "DDC")in Revision No. 459/202254104300001451 ( Rameshwari Gupta v. State of U.P. and Others) which was preferred under Section 48 (1) of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (in short "Act, 1953").

3. The revision, indicated above, was filed by opposite party no.6/ Rameshwari Gupta assailing the order dated 10.06.2022 (Annexure No. 8 to the petition) passed by respondent no.3/Settlement Officer of Consolidation (in short "SOC") in Appeal No. 495/2020541043000266 ( Rameshwari Gupta v. State of U.P. and Others) which was preferred under Section 11(1) of Act, 1953 and also the order dated 31.08.2020 (Annexure No. 6 to the petition) passed by respondent no.4/Consolidation Officer concerned (in short "CO") in Case No(s). 244/19-20 ( Rameshwar Gupta v. Pramodgiri ) and 838/19-20 ( Vinod Kediya v. Pramodgiri ).

4. Vide order dated 31.08.2020, the C.O. dismissed the objection/claim of the opposite party no. 6/Rameshwari Gupta which was based upon the registered sale deed dated 28.02.2018 (Annexure No. 2 to the petition) and allowed the objection of Vivek Kediya, who preferred the objection in public interest, after observing that land, in issue, i.e. Gata No. 19 situated at Village Kunautiya, Pargana-Pehla, Tehsil- Lakhimpur, District- Kheri was acquired for national highway.

5. Being aggrieved, the opposite party no. 6/Rameshwari Gupta, who purchased the land from one Pramod Giri, son of original tenure holder Shri Krishna, preferred an Appeal No. 495/2020541043000266. In the appeal, the petitioners were not impleaded, therefore, an application for impleadment was preferred and they were impleaded in compliance of order dated 08.09.2021 (Annexure No. 9 to the petition) and after hearing to the parties in the proceedings, the appeal was dismissed vide order dated 10.06.2022 affirming the order dated 31.08.2020.

6. Thereafter, opposite party no.6/Rameshwari Gupta preferred the Revision No. 459/202254104300001451 before respondent no.2. In the revision, petitioners were not impleaded. However, necessary party-the State as also the concerned department i.e. Public Works Department, Division-1, Lakhimpur Kheri (in short "P.W.D.") were impleaded. It would be relevant to refer that neither State Government nor P.W.D. contested the case before the authorities under Act, 1953 including before the DDC.

7. It would be apt to refer that petitioners are not aggrieved party but as per their own case, they are only whistle-blower. It would be relevant to refer that consolidation authorities under the Act, 1953 are not supposed to entertain an objection/appeal of a person who is not an aggrieve party.

8. The Revisional Authority/DDC, vide impugned order dated 06.10.2022, reversed the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the CO and SOC and allowed the revision of opposite party no.6/Rameshwari Gupta. Relevant portion of the impugned order dated 06.10.2022 of DDC, on reproduction, reads as under:

^^eSaus mifLFkr mHk;i{kksa ds fo}ku vf/koDrkx.kksa o ftyk 'kkldh; vf/koDrk ¼jktLo½ dks lquk rFkk voj U;k;ky;ksa dh i=kofy;ksa dk voyksdu fd;kA voyksdu ls Li"V gS fd eq[; fookn [kkrk la[;k&15 ds xkVk la[;k& 19@0-243 gs0 ds lEcU/k esa gSA fuxjkuhdrkZ dk dFku gS fd mlus xkVk la[;k&19@0-243 gs0 fodzsrk izeksn fxfj iq= Jhd`".k fxfj ls fnukad 28-02-2018 dks dz; dh Fkh] ftlds vk/kkj ij mldk uke ntZ fd;s tkus esa fodzsrk dks Hkh dksbZ vkifr ugha