Allahabad High Court
Smt. Rekha Rani vs State Of U.P. & Others on 8 July, 2010
Author: Sabhajeet Yadav
Bench: Sabhajeet Yadav
Court No. - 5 Case :- WRIT - B No. - 39203 of 2010 Petitioner :- Smt. Rekha Rani Respondent :- State Of U.P. & Others Petitioner Counsel :- Uma Nath Pandey Respondent Counsel :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Sabhajeet Yadav,J.
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
By this petition, the petitioner has challenged the judgement and order dated 28.5.2010 passed by Settlement Officer of Consolidation under Section 5(c) of U.P.C.H. Act, whereby the application of petitioner, for declaring the land to be used not connected with the agricultural purposes, has been rejected by Settlement Officer of Consolidation.
From the perusal of aforesaid impugned order it appears that the application of petitioner has been rejected merely on the ground that the village in which plot is situated has been notified by the State Government for Yamuna Express Way Industrial Development Authority, Gautam Budh Nagar. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that under the Rule 16-B of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Rules, 1954 the only relevant consideration for deciding the said application moved by the petitioner under Section 5(c) was that as to whether on account of grant/allowing of such application moved by the petitioner the consolidation scheme would be adversely affected. He was not required to examine the situations which were foreign to the provisions of the U.P.C.H. Act and Rules framed thereunder. In this connection, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the field of operation of U.P.C.H. Act and U.P. Industrial Development Act, 1976 are quite distinct and different altogether, therefore, merely on issuance of notification under the provisions of U.P. Industrial Development Act, 1976, comprising the land of village included in the said notification would not debar the Settlement Officer of Consolidation to exercise his jurisdiction under Section 5(c) of U.P.C.H. Act and he is competent enough to examine the situation under which the land can be permitted to be used for non- agricultural purpose during the consolidation proceedings. In support of his submission he has also placed reliance upon a decision rendered in Merino Exports Pvt. Ltd. and others Vs. Addl. Commissioner, Meerut and others reported in 2005 All. L.J. 2184. In my opinion, the ratio of aforesaid decision can be made applicable to the facts and circumstances of the instant case also and Settlement Officer of Consolidation is empowered to consider the claim of petitioner on merits independently under the aforesaid provisions of U.P.C.H. Act and rules framed thereunder without being influence by the provisions of U.P. Industrial Development Act, 1976. The view taken by him in the impugned order contrary to the view taken by me cannot be sustained. Accordingly the order dated 28.5.2010 is hereby quashed. The matter is remitted back again to the Settlement Officer of Consolidation, Gautam Budh Nagar by restoring the application to its original number with a direction to the Settlement Officer of Consolidation to decide the same afresh in the light of decision rendered by this Court in Merino Exports Pvt. Ltd. case. Such decision shall be taken within a period of two months from the date of production of certified copy of this order before him.
However, it is made clear that in spite of order passed by Settlement Officer of Consolidation under Section 5(c) of U.P.C.H. Act, it shall be open to the competent authority under the U.P. Industrial Development Act, to regulate the land in question according to the provisions of aforesaid Act, irrespective any order passed by Settlement Officer of Consolidation under Section 5(c) of the U.P.C.H. Act, if the land would come within industrial development area regulated by the provisions of U.P. Industrial Development Act, 1976.
Accordingly the writ petition stands allowed to the extent indicated herein before.
Order Date :- 8.7.2010 SL