Parties must show vested interest to contest consolidation proceedings; the Revisional Authority has the power to rectify procedural lapses under Section 48 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, ensuring lawful consolidation operations.

JUDGMENT

Saurabh Shyam Shamshery, J.

Heard Sri I.N. Singh, learned counsel for petitioner, Sri Pradeep Kumar Rai, learned counsel for contesting respondent and learned Standing Counsel for State.

2. The facts in brief of present case are as follows :-

(i) The land in dispute is 3 Bigha 19 biswas 0 dhur of plot No. 827 situated in village Malethi, District Ghazipur. The owner of the said plot were Dharmdeo, Bihar and Subedar, all sons of Ram Raj.

(ii) The consolidation operations commenced and publication under Section 9 of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as, "Act, 1953"), was issued on 02.12.1995. Subsequently, on 13.12.1996, the owners of land in dispute executed a sale-deed in favour of petitioner, a copy thereof is annexed along with supplementary counter affidavit.

(iii) The petitioner and her sons filed three objections under Section 9- A of Act, 1953, on the ground that plot No.821/1, area 1 bigha 3 biswa and 8 dhur was purchased by them and since said land is uncultivated and adjacent to roadside, therefore, being commercial in nature may not be included in consolidation operations.

(iv) The Consolidation Officer by an order dated 18.10.1997 allowed objections filed by petitioners and held that the gata No.827/1, area 1 bigha 3 biswa and 8 dhur, was affected with canal and being submerged under water, therefore, liable to be excluded from the consolidation proceedings. The relevant part of order is mentioned hereinafter :-

^^dsl ua0 & 142/143+143+145 /kkjk 9 d¼2½ ;w-ih-lh-,p- vf/k0

vkt i=koyh la[;k 142] 143 o 145 ,oa fofo/k c;ku gYQh ,d lkFk is'k gqbZ mijksDr lHkh i=koyh ,d nwljs ls lEcfU/kr gSA lHkh dks ,d lkFk ,d vkbZ djds lquokbZ dh x;h] vkifrdrkZ dh Hkjr xksiky] fursUnz o Jherh equs'pjh iRuh iapo o 4 [k xksiky iq= iape rFkk vk;Z us vkifRr fd;k gS fd xkVk la[;k&120 dh ekfy;r 30 ds ctk;s 60 o 70 fd;k tk;s Jherh equs'pjh iRuh ipae 827 jdok 1 ch?kk 3 foLok 8 /kqj tks cSukes dh Hkwfe gS pd ckgj fd;k tk;s Jh Hkjr xksiky us vkifRr fd;k gS fd xkVk la[;k&152 dh ekfy;r 20 iSls ls vf/kd c<+k;k tk;s iape us vkifRr fd;k gS fd xkVk la[;k&227@ ds ikWap fcLok dh ekfy;r yxk;h tk;sa] xzke ds vfHkys[k dk voyksdu fd;k x;k vkSj ik;k fd xkVk la[;k 120@1 ds vkl&ikl dh ekfy;r xkVk la[;k&119@] o 121 dh ekfy;r 40 o 50 iSlk fu/kkZfjr gS mldh rqyuk esa xkVk la[;k 20 dh ekfy;r de yxkbZ x;h gSA

2- xkVk la[;k&827@1] jdok A ch?kk 3 fcLok 8 /kwj ugj ls izHkkfor o tyeXu jgrk gS pd ckgj gksus ;ksX; gSA

3- xkVk la[;k&152 ds vklikl ds [ksrksa dh ekfy;r xkVk la[;k 152 dh ekfy;r de yxk;h x;h gSaA

4- xkVk la[;k 277@1 uydwi dk;ZcUn gks x;k gSA pd ckgj gksuk pkfg;sA

mijksDr foospuk ds vk/kkj ij vkns'k gqvk fd xkVk la[;k 120@1] 247i dh ekfy;r 20 ds LFkku ij 40] xkVk la[;k 827@1] jdck 1 ch?kk 3 fcLok 8 /kwj pd ckgj o xkVk la[;k 152 dh ekfy;r 20 iSlk ds LFkku ij 30 iSlk o xkVk la0 277@2 jdok 5 foLok pd ckgj ds LFkku ij ekfy;r 60 iSlk ntZ gks vkns'k okn la[;k&142] 143] 145 ij Hkh ykxw gksuk i=koyh nkf[ky nWQ~rj gksA**

(Emphasis Supplied)

(v) The respondents herein being aggrieved by above order filed a belated appeal (i.e. after four years) mainly on ground that, in case, land in dispute was directed to be excluded from consolidation proceedings, passage to their chak would be affected. The relevant paragraphs of memo of appeal are reproduced hereinafter :-

^^nQk & 2 ;g fd xkVk la[;k&827 ds lHkh cgh dh ekfy;r yxk;h x;h gSA rFkk xkVk la[;k&827@9 dh ekfy;r u yxkdj pdcUnh ckgj djus dk vf/kuLFk U;k;ky; dk vkns'k pdcUnh ckgj d