Ram Kinkar Singh vs State of U. P. - 2023 Supreme(All) 2596

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2023 Supreme(All) 2596

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
SAURABH SHYAM SHAMSHERY, J.
Ram Kinkar Singh - Petitioner
Versus
State Of U P And 12 Others - Respondents
WRIT B NO. 15672 OF 2015.
Decided On : 04-09-2023

Advocates appeared:
For the Petitioner:Sri Sachida Nand Tripathi, Arun Kumar Pandey, Advocate.
For the Respondent: Sri Jitendra Kumar Srivastava and Sri A.K.Rai, ACSC.

Headnote:(A) Uttar Pradesh Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 - Sections 11-A, 20, 21 - Consolidation proceedings - Bar on objections after specified stage - Court ruled that land with 'Parti' and 'Abadi' nature could be legitimately excluded from consolidation proceedings despite lack of earlier objections, as this directly challenges the proceedings' validity. (Paras 9-14)

(B) The court emphasized that Section 11-A prohibits raising objections concerning land claims and valuation if not addressed under Section 9, reinforcing the legislative intent behind proceedings. (Paras 10-12)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner contested the inclusion of 'Parti' and 'Abadi' land in consolidation proceedings, asserting that objections raised post-objection stage are barred under Section 11-A of the Act of 1953.

Findings of Court:
The court determined that objection based on land's nature could be heard at a later stage, thus correctly excluding certain areas from consolidation proceedings.

Issues: The court examined whether land described as 'Parti' or 'Abadi' could be excluded from consolidation despite procedural timelines dictated by the Act.

Ratio Decidendi: The court clarified that inclusion of land improperly categorized under consolidation could be rectified later, affirming a practical interpretation of statutory provisions.

Result: Writ petition dismissed.

Table of Content
1. initiation of consolidation proceedings and appeals (Para 2 , 3 , 4)
2. objections in consolidation hearings under section 11-a (Para 5 , 6)
3. considerations for land type in consolidation (Para 8 , 9 , 10)
4. bar under section 11-a for nature of land considerations (Para 11 , 12 , 14 , 15)
5. distinguishable cases regarding objection bar (Para 13 , 16)
6. writ petition dismissed (Para 17)

JUDGMENT

Saurabh Shyam Shamshery, J.

Heard Sri Sachida Nand Tripathi, Arun Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for petitioner, Sri Jitendra Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for respondents no.5, 6 and 7 and Sri A.K.Rai, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel.

2. In present case, proceedings under Section 21 of Uttar Pradesh Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (hereinafter called the 'Act of 1953') were initiated in pursuance of publication of Provisional Consolidation Scheme under Section 20 of Act of 1953, wherein the Consolidation Officer has considered objections filed by petitioner as well as respondents. Objections filed by Ram Nath (father of respondent nos.10 and 12) were allowed, whereas objections filed by Raj Bahadur, respondent no.5 and the petitioner (Ram Kiran Singh) were allowed in part. Ram Prasad and Raj Bahadur, (respondents no.4 and 5 herein) have filed Appeals before the Settlement Officer of Consolidation inter-alia on following grounds:

^^3& ;g fd vihydrkZx.k ds vk0ua0 362 ds iwohZ fgLls esa eRL; ikyu gsrq uo QhV xgjk rkykc gS tks orZeku pdcanh izfdz;k ds varxZr pd ckgj dj fn;k x;k gSA ftl rkykc ds if'peh fgLls dh tehu jkefdadj o fo'oukFk vkfn ds pdksa esa lek;ksftr dj nh x;h gS ftlls l[r gdryQh vihydrkZx.k dh gSA

4& ;g fd vihydrkZx.k ds pd la0 628 ds ikuh dk cgko if'pe ls iwjc rjQ gS tks vihydrkZx.k ds rkykc ds mRrjh fljs ls gksdj fudyrk gS mijksDr gkykr esa ;fn vihydrkZx.k rkykc ds if'peh fgLls dh tehu fdlh vU; pdnkj dks ,ykV dj fn;s tk;saxs rks ,slh gkyr esa vihydrkZx.k ds pd ds ikuh ds cgko :d tk;sxk rFkk vihydrkZx.k dk edku o Qly Mwc tk;sxh ftlls vihydrkZx.k dh viw.khZ; {kfr gksxhA ftls fdlh rkSj ij iwjk ugha fd;k tk ldrk gSA

5& ;g fd izfrmRrjnkrk jkefdadj dh vk0ua0 363 vihydrkZx.k ds vkjkth ua0 362 ds mRrjh o if'peh dksus ij gS ftldks mBk dj vkjkth ua0 362 ds iwohZ mRrjh fgLls esa dk;e fd;k tk jgk gS rFkk fo'oukFk vkfn dh vk0 vihydrkZx.k dh vk0ua0 362 ls nks Qjykax if'pe gS ftl mBkdj vihydrkZx.k ds v0ua0 362 ij laLFkkfir fd;k tk jgk gS tks pdcanh izfdz;k ds foijhr ?kksj vU;k; gSA ftlls l[ryQh vihydrkZ.k dh gSA**

3. All three appeals were decided by a common order dated 18.4.2013 whereby appeal bearing No.607/2012-13, ( Ram Prasad v. Inder Pal & Ors) was rejected. However, other two Appeals bearing No. 609/2012-13, (Ram Prasad & Ors v. Ram Kinker and Ors) and Appeals bearing No. 668/2012-2013, ( Indra Pal v. Raj Bahadur & Ors), were allowed and it was directed that area measuring 0.191 Hectare of Gata No.362 and certain area of Gata No.366 shall be dropped from consolidation proceedings being 'Parti' and 'Abadi' land. Relevant findings thereof are mentioned hereinafter:

^^i{kdkjku dks lquk x;kA xzke ds vfHkys[k ,oa pd Hkwfp= dk voyksdu fd;k x;kA LFky fujh{k.k fd;k x;kA LFky fujh{k.k esa ;g ik;k x;k fd xkVk la0 ¼362 fe {ks=Qy 0-191 gs0 tks rkykc ds lVs gSa rFkk ftlesa vihydrkZ us Lo;a Hkh xkVk la0 366 ds if'pe vkcknh cuk j[kh gS] dks ysrs gq, pdcanh fdz;k ls i`Fkd fd;k tkuk mfpr gSA ;g Hkh mYys[kuh; gS fd vihydrkZ us mDr xkVs esa u;k uofuekZ.k fd;k gS rFkk fuekZ.k ds ckcr dksbZ vuqefr izkIr ugha dh x;h gSA ;g xkVk vihydrkZx.k dk ewy xkVk gS rFkk pdnkj la0 632 jkefdadj iq= gfj dks mDr xkVs ij mM+ku pd izfn"V fd;k x;k gSA iz'uxr xkVk ekSds ij ijrh gS rFkk iwjh rjg ls vd`f"kd ,oa lVs rkykc gSA rnuqlkj vihy Lohdkj fd;s tkus ;ksX; gSA**

(Emphasis Supplied)

4. Petitioner being aggrieved by the aforesaid order, filed a Revision before the Deputy Director of Consolidation, which was allowed in part vide order dated 30.12.2014, inter-alia on following reasons:

^^nksuksa i{kksa ds lqcq) vf/koDrk ds rdkZsa