Allahabad High Court
Jay Pal Yadav vs Dy. Director Of Consolidation, ... on 27 April, 2024
Author: Alok Mathur
Bench: Alok Mathur
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH ?Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:33036 Court No. - 7 Case :- WRIT - B No. - 429 of 2024 Petitioner :- Jay Pal Yadav Respondent :- Dy. Director Of Consolidation, Sultanpur And Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Vishun Narain Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Mohan Singh Hon'ble Alok Mathur,J.
1. Heard Sri Vishun Narain, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing counsel on behalf of respondent No.s 1, 2 and 3 and Sri Mohan Singh for respondent No.4.
2.By means of the present petition under Article 227 the petitioner has assailed the order dated 30.6.2023 passed by Deputy Director of Consolidation, District Sultanpur whereby he has rejected the revision preferred by the petitioner against the order dated 22.8.2012 passed by Settlement Officer of Consolidation, Amethi, District Sultanpur.
3. The facts in brief, as stated in the petition, are that father of the petitioner Ramcharan was in possession of 5 biswa land of gata No.479 min. measuring area 0.089 hectare recorded as banjar khata in gaon sabha. The claim of the petitioner is that the said land has been used as abadi since abolition of zamindari and father of the petitioner made house on the said land. During consolidation operations objections under Section 9 (2) of U.P. Consolidation of Land Holdings Act were filed before Consolidation Officer and the Assistant Consolidation Officer filed report on 16.6.2010 mentioning the possession of the said land by the father of the petitioner. The said objections were rejected vide order dated 27.9.2010. While rejecting the objection of the petitioner the Consolidation Officer had, in fact, allowed the relief claimed by the petitioner and directed that gata No.479 area 0-5-0 be recorded as abadi in column 24 in CH Form 2A and accordingly changed the category of the said land.
4. Aggrieved by the impugned order the State had filed an appeal before the Settlement Officer of Consolidation on 15.6.2011. The Settlement Officer of Consolidation vide order dated 22.8.2012 allowed the appeal on the ground that the Consolidation Officer did not have any power to change the category of the land.
5. Aggrieved by the order dated 22.8.2012 the petitioner had filed the revision before Deputy Director of Consolidation who while rejecting the revision has upheld the order of Settlement Officer of Consolidation vide order dated 30.6.2023 which has also been impugned in the present petition.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that no irregularity was committed by the Consolidation Officer while changing the category of the land which was abadi and accordingly the order of Settlement Officer of Consolidation as well as Deputy Director of Consolidation are illegal, arbitrary and require interference.
7. Learned Standing counsel submits as well as learned counsel for the Gaon Sabha, on the other hand, have opposed the writ petition. They have submitted that the Consolidation Officer exercising the powers under the Act of 1953 has power to decide the objections but is not vested with the jurisdiction to change category of the land which power is vested only in the State Government as per Section 77 of U.P. Revenue Code. It has been submitted that Settlement Officer of Consolidation had merely correctly interpreted the law in this regard and held that Consolidation Officer has exceeded his jurisdiction. While on one hand, rejected the objections filed by the petitioner on the other allowing their claim with regard to change in category of the land from banjar to abadi.
8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
9. The only issue in the present case is as to whether Consolidation Officer has power to change the category of the land while deciding the objections under Section 9 (2) of the Act of 1953 ?
10. It is noticed that this aspect of the matter was considered in bunch of matters the leading being Consolidation Case No.6946 of 2019 titled as Vijay Kumar Vs. Consolidation Officer, Sawayajpur Hardoi and others which was decided on 13.3.2019 where in paragraph 30 following has observations have been made by the Court:
"The category assigned to a particular kind of land in terms of the provisions contained in Paragraph A-124 of U.P. Land Record Manual, in my considered opinion, is impermissible to be changed. Learned counsel for the petitioners has not been able to show any provision which confers any power or jurisdiction on any authority including the Sub Divisional Officer to change the category of land. In this regard, he has attempted to argue that in terms of the provisions contained in clause 9 of Paragraph Ka-155-Ka of U.P. Land Record Manual, the Collector is empowered to change the category of land and the Collector since includes Assistant Collector, First Class, as such, the Sub Divisional Officer will also have the authority to change the category of land."
11. It is further noticed that in the case of Devsthan, Village Saidapur Bhau through Mahant/ Sarvarakar Vs. State of U.P. through Secretary REvenue Department, Lucknow and others. decided on 27.1.2021 a coordinate Bench of this Court in paragraph 35 has also held as under:-
"35. It is evident from the documents on record that the Gaon Sabha was the recorded tenure holder of the property in question in the basic year kahtauni. On the basis of some alleged order passed on alleged objection being filed by the predecessor in interest of the petitioner, Baba Mathuradas alias Taapsee Baba, the Assistant Consolidation Officer had without jurisdiction passed an order changing the nature of land and recording the same in the name of Devasthan. After the order dated 28.9.2019 passed by the Settlement Officer Consolidation the Gaon Sabha became the recorded tenure holder of the property again. AT the time of resumption, the land in question was recorded in the name of the Gram Sabha and not in the name of Devstahn. Therefore, it cannot be said that the petitioner is an "aggrieved person."
12. A bare reading of both the aforesaid judgments makes it clear that the Consolidation Officer clearly does not have the power to change category of a land which power is reserved to be exercised either by Collector under Paragraph 155 Ka of U.P. Record Manual or the State Government as per Section 77 of Revenue Code. Accordingly, there is no dispute with regard to the said fact and this aspect of the matter has been considered and decided by a coordinate Bench of this Court and there is no reason to take another view other than the one which has been laid down in aforesaid judgments.
13. Apart from the above, no other judgment could be produced from the side of the petitioner which can persuade this Court from taking another view. In light of the above, this Court does not find any merit in the case necessitating interference under Article 227 of the Constitution. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed.
(Alok Mathur, J.) Order Date :- 27.4.2024/RKM.