Allahabad High Court
Krishna Kumar vs State Of U.P. And 3 Others on 13 July, 2022
Author: Dinesh Pathak
Bench: Dinesh Pathak
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Court No. - 32 Case :- WRIT - B No. - 1069 of 2022 Petitioner :- Krishna Kumar Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Amar Nath Pandey Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Bhupendra Kumar Tripathi Hon'ble Dinesh Pathak,J.
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
Present writ petition has been filed against the order dated 13.01.2021 passed by the Consolidation Officer, behind the back of the petitioner, without giving him opportunity of hearing, correcting/deleting the entry qua plot no. 3711 situated in village Suris, Tehsil Shahganj, District Jaunpur.
Instant writ petition is arising out of proceeding under Section 9A (2) of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act (in brevity 'U.P.C.H. Act') which has been initiated on the basis of report dated 15.10.2020, said to have been submitted by the Consolidator to the Assistant Consolidation Officer. On the basis of the said report, the Assistant Consolidation Officer has registered a case being Case No. 835 under Section 9A (2) of the U.P.C.H. Act and referred the matter before the Consolidation Officer for correction in the revenue record. Aforesaid report was accepted and, accordingly, record was corrected by impugned ex parte order dated 13.01.2021 passed by the Consolidation Officer.
Counsel for the petitioner submits that before passing the order dated 13.01.2021, opportunity of hearing has not been afforded to the petitioner, who was recorded tenure holders over the land in question. It is further submitted that at a very belated stage, without any justification to initiate a proceeding under Section 9A (2) of the U.P.C.H. Act, report has been called for and on the basis thereof, order dated 13.01.2021 has been passed behind the back of the petitioner which is in clear violation of principles of natural justice.
It is further submitted that the village was notified under Section 4(2) of the U.P.C.H. Act on 13.08.1969. Thereafter, notification under Section 20 was promulgated on 31.12.1971. Apart from that, notification under Section 24 was promulgated on 27.06.1972. Right now, final records are being prepared by the Consolidation Officer.
On a pointed query made to the Standing Counsel, satisfactory reply has not been given with regard to affording opportunity of hearing to the petitioner before passing the order dated 13.01.2021 by which recommendation made by the Assistant Consolidation Officer was ordered to be accepted so that revenue entries could be corrected.
Counsel for the petitioners has also submitted that identical controversy have already came up for consideration before this Court in several writ petitions being Writ B No. 561 of 2021 (Makhanchu vs. State of U.P. & 3 Others), Writ B No.2000 of 2021 (Suresh Kumar & Another vs. Deputy Director of Consolidation & 6 Others) etc., wherein parties were relegated before the authority concerned for providing opportunity of hearing.
Having considered the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and the record on Board, it is apparently clear that impugned order dated 13.01.2021 has been passed ex parte, behind the back of the petitioner, without issuing notice to him and without affording opportunity of hearing.
In this conspectus, in my opinion, no useful purpose would be served to keep this petition pending before this Court. Accordingly, present writ petition succeeds and is allowed. Ex parte impugned order dated 13.01.2021 passed by the Consolidation Officer to correct the revenue record is hereby quashed. Proceeding which was initiated on the basis of the report submitted by the Consolidator is restored to its original number. Present petitioner is at liberty to file a detailed objection in the said proceeding ventilating his grievances against the report submitted by the Consolidator along with the documents in support of their case, within a period of two weeks from today. The Consolidation Officer shall make an endeavour to decide the proceeding within a period of six months from the date of production of certified copy of this order.
It is expected that it should be decided by reasoned and speaking order, in accordance with law, after affording opportunity of hearing to the parties concerned and without granting unnecessary adjournments.
Order Date :- 13.7.2022 VR