Allahabad High Court
Panna Lal vs State Of U.P. And 12 Others on 13 February, 2025
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:20632 Court No. - 50 Case :- PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION (PIL) No. - 313 of 2025 Petitioner :- Panna Lal Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 12 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ashok Kumar Pandey,Vijai Prakash Tiwari Counsel for Respondent :- Bhupendra Kumar Tripathi,C.S.C. Hon'ble Chandra Kumar Rai,J.
1.Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. T.P. Gupta, learned Standing counsel for the State-respondents and Mr. Bhupendra Kumar Tripathi, learned counsel for the Goan Sabha.
2. Brief facts of the case are that Village-Faridabad, Pargana-Gadwara, Tehsil-Machhali Sahar, District--Jaunpur came under operation of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 hereinafter referred to as U.P.C.H Act by way of notification issued in the years 1973 under Section 4 (2) of U.P.C.H. Act. In the basic year of Consolidation operation Harish Chand and others were recorded over the plot in dispute as mentioned in the instant public interest litigation. Village in question was denotified under Section 52 of UP.C.H.Act long back and in C.H. Form 45 Ram Chandra, Gyan Chandra, Girish Chandra were recorded. In the proceeding initiated under Section 48 (3) of U.P. C.H. Act which was registered as Case No.33/35 State Vs. Ram Chader and others an order dated 31.08.2016 was passed by Additional District-Magistrate (F & R) / Deputy Director of Consolidation expunging entry of Plot No.1127 area 0.405 hectare & 1128 area 0.563 hectare and ordered to record the same in khata of Gaon Sabha as Bhita/Jerab/pond. Respondent No.7/Bhagwandeen filed a restoration application dated 14.11.2018 for recalling the order dated 31.08.2016 along with prayer for condonation of delay. Additional District Magistrate (F & R) Jaunpur vide order dated 06.09.2022 condoned the delay in filing the restoration application dated 14.11.2018 and set aside the order dated 31.08.2016 as well as restored the proceeding under Section 48 (3) of U.P.C.H. Act on its original number for fresh disposal of the proceeding. Additional District Magistrate (F & R) Jaunpur vide order dated 05.12.2022 dismissed the proceeding under Section 48 (3) of U.P.C.H. Act as not maintainable. Hence this public interest litigation on behalf of petitioner who is practicing advocate of Civil Court Jaunpur for following relief:
"(i) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the orders dated 6.9.2022 and 5.12.2022 passed by the Additional District Magistrate Jaunpur in Case No.4677/2022, Computerized No.D-2022143004677, State Vs. Ram Chandra U/S 48(3) Consolidation of Holdings Act (Annexure Nos.8 and 9 to the petition).
(ii) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the Respondent Nos.2 to 5 to restore the Bhita, Jerab/Pond over the Gata No.1127/0.405 hectare and Gata No.1128/0.563 hectare situated in Gaon Sabha Faridabad, Pargana Gadwara, Tehsil Machhali Shahar, Jaunpur. District-Jaunpur.
(iii) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the Respondent Nos.2 to 5 to delete the name of the Respondent Nos.7 to 13 from new Gata No.1127/0.405 hectare and Gata No.1128/0.563 hectare which are recorded as Bhita and Jerab/Pond in year 1356 Fasli and 1359 Fasli situated in Gaon Sabha Faridabad, Pargana Gadwara, Tehsil Machhali Shahar, District Jaunpur.
(iv) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the Respondent No.2 to decide representation dated 31.7.2024 preferred by the petitioner within stipulated period as directed by this Hon'ble Court."
3. The Stamp reporter has reported latches 704 days (about two years) as there is prayer for quashing the order passed on 06.09.2022 & 05.12.2022.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that jurisdiction under Section 48 (3) of U.P.C.H. Act was rightly exercised to record the plot in question as Bhita/ Jerab/ Pond in view of the entry of the plot in question in 1356 fasli & 1359 fasli. He further submitted that there was fraud and manipulation in getting entry in the basic year khatauni as such there will be no bar of section 49 of U.P.C.H. Act. He submitted that Bhita/ Jerab/Pond are nature's bounty as such Bhita/ Jerab/ Pond are to be protected. He submitted that no bhumidhari right will accrue to anybody in respect to public utility plots. He submitted that impugned order should be set aside and order dated 31.08.2016 passed under Section 48 (3) of U.P.C.H. Act should be restored.
5. On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel and counsel for the gaon Sabha submitted that orders passed in judicial proceeding can not be set aside in public interest litigation as such instant public interest litigation should be dismissed.
6. I have considered the argument advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perused the records.
7. There is no dispute about the fact that consolidation operation was started in the village in the year 1973 and village in question was denotified under Section-52 of U.P.C.H. Act long back. There is also no dispute about the fact that basic year entry of the plot in question was not challenged by anybody during consolidation operation.
8. In the instant matter the basic year entry of the plot in question has been expunged vide order dated 31.08.2016 in the proceeding under Section 48 (3) of U.P.C.H. Act after denotification of the village in question accordingly on the restoration application of the recorded tenure holders the order dated 31.08.2016 passed under Section -48 (3) of U.P.C.H. act expunging the entry of the recorded tenure holders was set aside and proceeding under Section 48 (3) of U.P.C.H. Act was dropped vide order dated 05.12.2022 as such public interest litigation for quashing the order dated 06.09.2022/05.12.2022 cannot be entertained.
9. Full procedure has been prescribed under U.P.C.H. Act to challenge the basic year entry as such jurisdiction under Section 48 (3) of U.P.C.H. Act cannot be exercised after denotification of the village under Section 52 of U.P.C.H.Act.
10. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case the public interest litigation cannot be entertained for quashing the orders passed in the judicial proceeding.
11. The instant public interest litigation is accordingly dismissed.
Order Date :- 13.2.2025 PS*