A party must file timely objections under the Uttar Pradesh Consolidation of Holdings Act, or claims related to land within the consolidation scheme are deemed invalid, and previous orders cannot be reinstated post-abatement.

JUDGMENT :

SAURABH SHYAM SHAMSHERY, J.

1. Petitioners claimed that they were tenure holder of plot Nos. 179/2 area 0.897 hectare and 177 area 0.201 hectare situated at Tehsil Nazibabad, District Bijnor, along with other certain land. It was the case of petitioners that said plots of land were being used as abadi and for commercial purpose for last 30 years.

2. The village concerned was brought under consolidation scheme on 18/8/1992 when the notification under section 4 of the Uttar Pradesh Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (for short “Act of 1953”) was issued. It was further case of the petitioners that after above referred notification, proceedings were initiated under section 143 of U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 (for short “Act of 1950”) and on basis of reply filed by petitioners, concerned authority by an order dated 15/1/1994 declared above referred land in dispute to be non agricultural with a further direction for Amaldaramad.

3. It appears that order was not implemented and meanwhile during consolidation proceedings, above referred land was reserved for purpose of an Ambedkar Park and for Abadi of Weaker Section of Society, after determining its valuation.

4. In above circumstances, petitioners at belated stage for the first time filed objections under section 20(1) of the Act of 1953. It is not in dispute that petitioners have never filed any objection under section 9 of the Act of 1953. The Consolidation Officer by an ex-parte order dated 10/04/2000 allowed objections of the petitioners and held that since order dated 15/01/1994, as referred above was not recorded in the revenue records, therefore, said error may be cured and valuation was determined and land in dispute was excluded from the consolidation proceedings. It must be noted here that the Consolidation Officer has not considered that above referred order dated 15/01/1994 was passed subsequent to commencement of the consolidation proceedings.

5. The contesting respondents being beneficiary as members of Weaker Section of Society, have filed a belated recall application since alternative land reserved by above order dated 10/04/2000 was not considered to be proper and suitable and it was requested to restore earlier allotment of land for said purpose.

6. The said Restoration application was allowed and order dated 10/04/2000 was set aside and objections of petitioners were rejected and it was held that subsequent land reserved for Ambedkar Park and for Abadi of Weaker Section of Society was not suitable, therefore, possession of land in dispute was restored back to them.

7. In these circumstances, petitioners have filed an appeal before Settlement Officer Consolidation which was dismissed by an order dated 14/2/ 2011 and relevant part thereof is quoted below:

(Emphasis Supplied)

8. Above referred order was challenged by the petitioners before Revisional Authority which was dismissed by an order dated 01/05/2013 and relevant part thereof is mentioned below:

(Emphasis Supplied)

9. Sri J.P.S. Chauhan, learned counsel for petitioners has vehemently argued that order dated 15.01.1994 passed under proceedings, initiated under section 143 of Act of 1950 was never challenged and, therefore, it has attained finality, and it would not be considered to be abated in terms of Section 5 (2) of Act of 1953, since no one has approached the authority concerned to abate it, therefore, it has legal consequences.

10. Learned couns