Allahabad High Court
Shriram And 4 Others vs State Of U.P. And 5 Others on 1 March, 2023
Author: Dinesh Pathak
Bench: Dinesh Pathak
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Court No. - 5 Case :- WRIT - B No. - 253 of 2023 Petitioner :- Shriram And 4 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 5 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Rajnarayn Singh Yadav,Ram Adhar Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Abhishek Rai Hon'ble Dinesh Pathak,J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned standing counsel representing respondents No. 1, 2, 3 and 7 and counsel for the private respondent No. 4 on the admission of the writ petition and perused the record on board.
2. Challenge has been raised in the instant writ petition to the order dated 12.09.2022 passed by Deputy Director of Consolidation rejecting the revision filed on behalf of the petitioner being not maintainable.
3. Facts culled out from the averments made in the writ petition are that Consolidation Officer has passed common order dated 09.11.1990 in several cases under Section 9-A(2) U.P.C.H. Act. Having been aggrieved, Ramashray (predecessor in the interest of respondents No. 4 and 5) has filed two appeals which were decided by common order dated 11.06.1996. At later stage, Consolidation operation in the village was cancelled by notification under Section 6(1) of U.P.C.H. Act promulgated on 20.08.2018. After notification under Section 6(1) of U.P.C.H. Act, revision No. 360 dated 16.01.2020 has been filed on behalf of present petitioners assailing the order dated 11.06.1996. Deputy Director of Consolidation, vide order dated 12.09.2022, has dismissed the revision on the ground of maintainability.
4. Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the Deputy Director of Consolidation has illegally dismissed the revision on the ground of maintainability, whereas, he would either have decided the revision on merits or abate the entire proceedings. Apart from that, counsel for the petitioner has tried to point out several discrepancies in the order passed by Settlement Officer of Consolidation dated 11.06.1996 and submits that said order is not sustainable in the eye of law. It is next submitted that instant writ petition may be allowed and order impugned dated 12.09.2022 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation may be quashed, being illegal, unwarranted under the law and tainted with irregularities.
5. Learned counsel for the contenting-respondents has contended that once the Consolidation operation ceases by virtue of notification under Section 6(1) of U.P.C.H. Act, Consolidation authorities have no jurisdiction to entertain any proceeding under the provisions of U.P.C.H. Act and the rules made thereunder. He has next contended that after notification under Section 6(1) of U.P.C.H. Act, the revision filed on behalf of the petitioners was not maintainable in eye of law, therefore, instant writ petition may be dismissed in-limine being misconceived and devoid on merits.
6. Having considered the rival submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perusal of record, it reveals that the question for consideration in the instant writ petition lies in narrow compass with respect to the maintainability of the revision which was preferred after notification under Section 6(1) of U.P.C.H. Act.
7. Appraisal of the provisions as enunciated under U.P.C.H. Act and the rules made thereunder reflects that declaration to carry out the consolidation operation in particular village/unit is made through Gazette notification promulgated under Section 4 of U.P.C.H. Act. Once the village/unit is notified under Section 4 of U.P.C.H. Act, the entire notified area will come under the consolidation operation and the right, title and interest of the parties are liable to be adjudicated upon under the provisions of U.P.C.H. Act as enunciated under Section 7 to Section 11. Thereafter, there is a provision of preparation of scheme for the provisional consolidation for the purposes of allotment of Chak to the tenure holders. Proceedings as enunciated qua right, title and interest or the Chak allotment proceeding are culminated at the stage of revisional jurisdiction under Section 48 of U.P.C.H. Act.
8. Section 6(1) of U.P.C.H. Act denotes that the State Government, at any stage of the consolidation operation can cancel the Gazette notification issued under Section 4 of U.P.C.H. Act with respect to the whole or any part of the notified area. Section 6(2) of the U.P.C.H. Act denotes consequential effect of the cancellation of the consolidation operation by virtue of promulgation of notification under Section 6(1) of U.P.C.H. Act. It is apposite to mention that Section 5 of the U.P.C.H. Act is also one of the important section which denotes the effect of the notification under Section 4 of U.P.C.H. Act. It provides that any proceeding or suit pending before any court with respect to the declaration of right and interest of any party over the land lying in the area shall stand abated. The second proviso to Section 5(2)(a) of U.P.C.H. Act denotes the effect of the issuance of notification under Section 6(1) of U.P.C.H. Act, in those matters where proceedings and the suit are abated under Section 5(2)(a) of U.P.C.H. Act. For ready reference Section 5(2) and 6 of U.P.C.H. Act are quoted hereinbelow:-
Section 5. Effect of [notification under Section 4(2)]- (1) .......
(2) Upon the said publication of the notification under sub-section (2) of Section 4, the following further consequences shall ensue in the area to which the notification relates, namely -
(a) every proceeding for the correction of records and every suit and proceeding in respect of declaration of rights or interest in any land lying in the area, or for declaration or adjudication of any other right in regard to which proceedings can or ought to be taken under this Act, pending before any Court or authority whether of the first instance or of appeal, reference or revision, shall, on an order being passed in that behalf by the Court or authority before whom such suit or proceeding is pending, stand abated :
Provided that no such order shall be passed without giving to the parties notice by post or in any other manner and after giving them an opportunity of being heard :
Provided further that on the issue of a notification under sub-section (1) of Section 6 in respect of the said area or part thereof, every such order in relation to the land lying in such area or part as the case may be, shall stand vacated;
(b) such abatement shall be without prejudice to the rights of the persons affected to agitate the right or interest in dispute in the said suits or proceedings before the appropriate consolidation authorities under and in accordance with the provisions of this Act and the rules made thereunder.] [Explanation. - For the purposes of sub-section (2), a proceeding under the Uttar Pradesh Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960 or an uncontested proceeding under Sections 134 to 137 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950, shall not be deemed to be a proceeding in respect of declaration of rights or interest, in any land.] Section 6. Cancellation of notification under Section 4. - (1) It shall be lawful for the State Government at any time to cancel the [notification] made under Section 4 in respect of the whole or any part of the area specified therein.
[(2) Where a [notification] has been cancelled in respect of any unit under sub-section (1), such area shall, subject to the final orders relating to the correction of land records, if any, passed on or before the date of such cancellation, cease to be under consolidation operations with effect from the date of the cancellation.
9. Section 6(2) of the U.P.C.H. Act make it obligatory upon the consolidation authorities for giving effect to the orders finally passed by the Consolidation Courts relating to the correction of land record, if any, passed on or before date of cessation of the consolidation operation. It further denotes that the notified area may be ceased to be under consolidation operation with effect from the date of the cancellation. Meaning thereby, the order which has attained finality before the cessation of the consolidation operation will be given effect to in the land record, however, on the other side, order which has not attained finality before cessation of the consolidation operation will not be given effect to in the land record. Consequently, the land record will relate back to the stage of the basic consolidation record which was existing at the time of notification under Section 4 of U.P.C.H. Act. Second proviso to Section 5(2)(a) of U.P.C.H. Act makes it clear that ever order of abatement as passed under Section 5(2)(a) of U.P.C.H. Act, owing to the notification under Section 4 of U.P.C.H. Act, shall stand vacated due to the notification under Section 6(1) of U.P.C.H. Act. Conjoint reading of Section 6 and Section 5 of U.P.C.H. Act clearly denotes that all the provisions of the U.P.C.H. Act, which is a special enactment, and the rules made thereunder will be ceased after cancellation of the notification issued under Section 4 of U.P.C.H. Act by virtue of the notification promulgated under Section 6(1) of U.P.C.H. Act. Meaning thereby, all the consolidation authorities will have lay their hands off from any consolidation proceeding since the date of the notification under Section 6(1) of U.P.C.H. Act. In case, any proceeding is pending under the relevant provisions of the U.P.C.H. Act on the date of notification promulgated under Section 6(1) of U.P.C.H. Act same will be abated and the original entry of the basic consolidation record will be revived. On the other hand, any proceeding, in case, is finally terminated by the order passed by the Consolidation Courts, before the cancellation of the consolidation operation, same shall be given effect to in the land record for the purposes of necessary correction.
10. Considering the proposition of law, as discussed above, in the given circumstances of the present case, I am of the considered view that the Deputy Director of Consolidation has rightly dismissed the revision as not maintainable, filed after issuance of notification under Section 6(1) of U.P.C.H. Act. Deputy Director of Consolidation has given a categorical finding that order of Settlement Officer of Consolidation was passed on 11.06.1996. Thereafter, consolidation operation was cancelled by virtue of notification under Section 6(1) of U.P.C.H. Act promulgated on 20.11.2018. Meaning thereby, before the cancellation of consolidation operation, the order dated 11.06.1996 passed by the Settlement Officer of Consolidation has attained finality between the parties and the same is protected under the provisions of law as enunciated under Section 6(2) of U.P.C.H. Act. At a very belated stage, present petitioners have filed revision dated 16.01.2020 assailing the order dated 11.06.1996, whereas, consolidation operation has already been ceazed by notification promulgated on 20.08.2018.
11. In this conspectus, as above, I did not find any justifiable ground to interfere in the order impugned passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation in dismissing the revision filed on behalf of the petitioner on the ground of maintainability. There is no illegality, perversity or the ambiguity in the order under challenge passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation so as to warrant the indulgence of this Court in exercise of its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
12. Resultantly, instant writ petition, being misconceived and devoid of merits, is dismissed with no orders as to costs.
Order Date :- 1.3.2023 S.Ahmad