The failure to provide an opportunity to lead evidence in title disputes under the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act violates principles of natural justice, allowing for judicial review under Article 226.

Headnote:(A) U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 - Section 9A(2) - U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Rules, 1954 - Rule 109-A - Title dispute - The Consolidation Officer altered the entry of a plot without affording the petitioner an opportunity to lead evidence, violating principles of natural justice. The court emphasized that proper notice and opportunity to present evidence are mandatory in such proceedings. (Paras 5, 8, 10, 12)

(B) Natural Justice - The court reiterated that orders passed in violation of natural justice principles can be challenged under Article 226 of the Constitution, irrespective of alternative remedies available. (Paras 11, 12)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner challenged the orders of the Consolidation Officer regarding a title dispute, asserting that the decision was made without allowing evidence to be presented. The petitioner sought to quash multiple orders related to the title dispute and requested a fair hearing.

Findings of Court:
The court found that the orders passed by the Consolidation Officer were made without proper notice and opportunity for the petitioner to present evidence, thus violating natural justice.

Issues: The main issues were whether the petitioner was afforded a fair opportunity to present evidence and the legality of the orders passed by the Consolidation Officer.

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the failure to provide an opportunity to lead evidence rendered the orders unsustainable, and emphasized the necessity of adhering to natural justice principles in administrative proceedings.

Result: Writ petition stands allowed in part; orders set aside and matter remitted for further proceedings.

JUDGMENT :

(Chandra Kumar Rai, J.)

1. Supplementary affidavit along with certified copy of the impugned order is taken on record.

2. Counsel for the petitioner is permitted to implead Gaon Sabha as respondent no.20 in the writ petition during course of the day and serve the copy of the writ petition upon Mr. Krishan Kant Mani, learned counsel for respondent-Gaon Sabha.

3. Heard Mr. Anil Kumar Aditya, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Ashutosh Kumar Rai, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State respondents and Mr. Krishna Kant Mani, learned counsel for the Gaon Sabha.

4. Brief facts of the case are that title dispute under Section 9A (2) of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 hereinafter referred as U.P.C.H. Act was registered as case No. 1238 of 2022, Computerized case No. 20225409601031238 State Vs. Labh Singh. The aforementioned case was decided by Consolidation Officer vide order dated 3.7.2024 altering the entry of the plot belonging to petitioner along with others. In pursuance of the order dated 3.7.2024, proceeding under Rule 109 (A) of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Rules 1954 hereinafter referred to as U.P.C.H. Rules has been initiated and Consolidation Officer has passed the order dated 30.8.2024 for recording the plot in question in pursuance of the order dated 3.7.2024 under Section 9A (2) of the U.P.C.H. Act. Hence this writ petition for the following relief:-

(ii) To issue a suitable writ, order or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper under the circumstances of the case.

(iii) To award the costs of the petition to the petitioner

(iv) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari partly quashing the order dated 30.8.2024 passed by Consolidation Officer, Tehsil Nakud, District Saharanpur-respondent no.2."

5. Counsel for the petitioner submitted that title objection was registered before the Consolidation Officer and petitioner was appearing in the proceeding. He further submitted that without affording opportunity to lead evidence in accordance with law, the title objection has been decided by Consolidation Officer under the impugned order dated 3.7.2024. He submitted that on 20.6.2024, the application was filed on behalf of Labh Singh and Others that some other date be fixed in the matter as witness of the applicant is not feeling well, as such, they could not adduce evidence in the proceeding. He submitted that application dated 20.6.2024 filed by Labh Singh and Others was rejected and case was fixed for 28.6.2024. He submitted that impugned order has been passed by Consolidation Officer on 3.7.2024 without giving opportunity to lead evidence in accordance with law which is fully demonstrated from the application dated 20.6.2024 and the order passed on the application dated 20.6.2024. He further submitted that revision filed against the orders dated 20.6.2024/ 24.6.2024 has also been dismissed in arbitrary manner. He submitted that in view of the provisions contained under the U.P.C.H. Rules, the opportunity to lead evidence is to be properly afforded to the tenure holders, as such, the impugned order cannot be sustained in the eye of law. He further submitted that entry of the plot in question cannot be altered in the subsequent consolidation operation as in the earlier consolidation operation, the entry of the plot in question was in favour of petitioner's predecessor. He submitted that the authorities have initiated the proceeding under Rule 109-A of the U.P.C.H. Rules in arbitrary manner and without notice/ opportunity of hearing to petitioner, an order dated 30.8.2024 has been passed correcting the entry of the plot in question on th

Click Here to Read the rest of this document