The jurisdiction of consolidation authorities under the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953, post-notification under Section 52(1) is ambiguous and requires clarification by a larger bench.

JUDGMENT :

Hon'ble Jaspreet Singh, J.-The instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioners assailing the order dated 5.7.2024 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Gonda in proceedings initiated under Section 48 (3) of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act of 1953').

2. The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the State-respondents have moved an application under Section 48 (3) of the Act of 1953 for the purposes of correcting the records prepared during consolidation operations relating to old plot Nos. 19-a, 53-A and its equivalent new numbers bearing 14-Ka, 14-Kha, 14-Ga and 14-Gha. Plot Nos. 6-Ka, 6-kha and 6-Ga situate in Village Nadawar, Pargana, Tehsil and District Gonda.

3. As per the application moved by the State-Authorities purporting to be under Section 48 (3) of the Act of 1953, it was alleged that the aforesaid mentioned plots were recorded as pond land and the said land could neither be recorded in the name of any private individuals nor rights could be conferred on any individual in respect of such land. It was stated that during consolidation operations the said records did not reflect the correct entries and in the aforesaid circumstances, the name of the petitioners in respect of the said plots has been incorporated without any order of the Competent Authority, hence, such entries in favour of the petitioners is fraudulent and the same needs to be corrected.

4. It is the case of the petitioners that they had filed their preliminary objections regarding maintainability of the said proceedings on 20th December, 2023 and the DDC without considering the preliminary objections was proceeding to decide the matter on merits. It is urged that merely because an order had been passed in contempt proceedings where the DDC was a party, hence, under threat of contempt the Deputy Director of Consolidation brushed aside the preliminary objections and in haste was keen to hear and decide the matter on merits.

5. It is urged that the preliminary objections dated 20th December, 2023 were rejected without considering the fact that the proceedings could not have been initiated at the behest of the State-Authorities after notification made under Section 52(1) of the Act of 1953. Another ground raised by the petitioners was that from the bare reading of Section 48 (3) of the Act of 1953, it would indicate that the proceedings are in the nature of a reference which has to emanate either before the Consolidation Officer or the Settlement Officer of Consolidation but cognizance cannot be taken directly by or before the Deputy Director of Consolidation.

6. It is urged that the matter when initiated before the Consolidation Officer or the Settlement Officer of Consolidation, at that point of time, an opportunity of hearing is required to be given to the party and thereafter if it appears that a reference is required thereafter the Authority frames the reference and sends it to the Deputy Director of Consolidation. At this stage too, i.e. before the Deputy Director of Consolidation, when the reference comes to be heard, the affected party is again required to be given an opportunity of hearing before passing final orders on reference.

7. It is urged that in the instant case, neither any opportunity was granted before the Consolidation Officer or the Settlement Officer of Consolidation for the reason that the application for reference has been moved straightway before the Deputy Director of Consolidation and this procedure as adopted is against the statute. Moreover, once the notification under Section 52 (1) of the Act of 1953 had been promulgated then a reference Court is not entitled to entertain such a reference, thus, for the aforesaid reasons, the order impugned dated 5.7.2024 is bad in the eyes of law.

8. The learned counsel for the petitioner in support of his aforesaid submissions has, relied upon the following decisions :

(i) Ghafoor v. Additional Commissi