Allahabad High Court
Atar Singh vs Dy. Director Of Consolidation G.B. ... on 17 April, 2025
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:57177 Court No. - 50 Case :- WRIT - B No. - 7150 of 2011 Petitioner :- Atar Singh Respondent :- Dy. Director Of Consolidation G.B. Nagar And Others Counsel for Petitioner :- P.K.S. Paliwal Counsel for Respondent :- Anuj Kumar Hon'ble Chandra Kumar Rai,J.
1. Heard Mr. P.K.S. Paliwal, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Pawan Kumar Srivastava, learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents and Mr. Sunil Kumar Singh, learned counsel for respondent No.3-Gaon Sabha.
2. Brief facts of the case are that during consolidation operation an objection under Section 9-A(2) of U.P.Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as the U.P.C.H. Act) was filed by petitioner for recording his name over plot No.335 situated at village-Jarcha, Pargana and Tehsil-Dadari, Distict-Gautam Budh Nagar. The report was submitted in the proceeding and notices were issued to the Gram Pradhan of Gaon Sabha as well as State. Consolidation Officer after hearing the learned counsel for the parties vide final order dated 07.1.2003 directed to record plot No.335 in the name of petitioner as bhumidhar with non-transferable right but no appeal or revision has been filed by Gaon Sabha or State under Section 11 or Section 48 of U.P.C.H. Act against the order dated 07.01.2003 passed by Consolidation Officer. Petitioner initiated proceeding under Rule 109-A of U.P.Consolidation of Holdings Rules, 1954 (herein after referred to as U.P.C.H. Rules) and Consolidation Officer vide order dated 3.5.2003 issued parwana for recording the name of petitioner over plot No.335 as bhumidhar with non-transferable right. Against the order dated 03.05.2003 appeal under Rule 109-A (3) of the U.P.C.H. Rules was filed by Gaon Sabha as well as State along with prayer for condonation of delay. Settlement Officer of Consolidation vide order dated 18.01.2006 granted benefit of Section 5 of Limitation Act, set aside the order dated 03.05.2003 passed in the proceeding under Rule 109-A of U.P.C.H. Rules as well as order dated 07.01.2003 passed under Section 9-A (2) of U.P.C.H. Act. Settlement Officer of Consolidation further directed to record the plot in question as "Usar" in the revenue record. Petitioner challenged the order dated 18.01.2006 in revision before Deputy Director of Consolidation which was dismissed vide order dated 29.12.2010 hence this writ petition filed for the following relief:
"(i) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 29.12.2010 passed by Deputy Director of Consolidation Gautam Budh Nagar in revision No.116 (Annexure 1 of the writ petiton) and the order of Settlement officer Consolidation dated 18.01.2006 passed in appeal No.12 (Annexue No.5 of the writ petition).
(ii) to pass such order and further order and to confirm the order of the consolidation officer dated 03.05.2003 (Annexure No.6 of the writ petition)."
3. This Court entertained the matter on 09.02.2011 and granted interim protection to maintain the status quo with respect to the nature and possession of the plot in question. In pursuance of the order of this Court dated counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of State and petitioner has filed rejoinder affidavit.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that petitioner belongs to Scheduled caste community and remained in continuous possession of the plot in question since long period. He submitted that title objection was filed on behalf of petitioner under Section 9-A (2) of U.P.C.H. Act for recording the petitioner's name over the plot in question considering the provisions contained under Section 122-B (4F) of U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 (hereinafter refereed to as the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act). He further submitted that Consolidation officer has allowed the title objection filed by petitioner directing to expunge the entry of "Usar" as well as record the plot in the name of petitioner. He submitted that order passed in the proceeding under Section 9-A (2) of U.P.C.H. Act has attained finality as such in the proceeding under Rule 109-A (3) of U.P.C.H. Rules, the order passed in the proceeding under Section 9-A (2) of U.P.C.H. Act cannot be set aside by the Settlement Officer of Consolidation. He placed reliance upon the judgment of this Court reported in 2015 (129) RD 740 Satpal Vs. Collector/Deputy Director of Consolidation and two others in order to demonstrate that Consolidation Court can examine the issue relating to Section 122B (4F) of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act while deciding objection under Section 9-A (2) of U.P.C.H. Act. He further submitted that impugned orders passed by Consolidation authorities in the proceeding under Rule 109-A of U.P.C.H. Rules should be set aside and the order dated 07.01.2003 passed in the proceeding under Section 9-A (2) of U.P.C.H. Act should be affirmed as well as entry of plot in question should be corrected in pursuance of the order dated 07.01.2003.
5. Mr. Pawan Kumar Srivastava, learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondent submitted that proper opportunity was not afforded to state by the Consolidation Officer while passing the order under Section 9-A (2) of U.P.C.H. Act for recording the name of petitioner over plot in question. He further submitted that plot in question was recorded as "Usar land" in the revenue record, as such there is no illegality in the impugned order passed by Settlement Officer of Consolidation under Rule 109-A (3) of U.P.C.H. Rules. He further submitted that no interference is required against the order impugned passed by the consolidation authorities. He further submitted that in view of the area of the plot in question involved in the matter, the benefit of Section 122B (4F) of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act cannot be given to the petitioner.
6. Mr. Sunil Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the Gaon Sabha, submitted that there is no illegality in the order passed by the Consolidation authorities setting aside the order passed in the proceeding under Rule 109A of U.P.C.H. Rules as well as Section 9-A (2) of U.P.C.H. Act as plot in question was rerecorded as "Usar" in the revenue record.
7. In reply learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that "Usar land" can be settled in favour of the person belonging to Scheduled caste community if possession is before the relevant date as such there was no illegality in the order passed by Consolidation Officer for recording the name of the petitioner over the plot in question.
8. I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
9. There is no dispute about the fact that land in question was recorded as "Usar" in the revenue record and petitioner has filed title objection under Section 9-A (2) of U.P.C.H Act which was allowed by the Consolidation Officer vide order dated 07.01.2003 directing to record the name of the petitioner as bhumidhar with non-transferable rights. There is also no dispute about the fact that no title appeal or revision has been filed by the Gaon Sabha/State challenging the order of Consolidation Officer dated 07.01.2003 passed under Section 9-A (2) of U.P.C.H. Act. There is no dispute about the fact that proceeding under Rules 109-A (1) of U.P.C.H. Rules initiated by petitioner was allowed but in appeal order has been set aside as well as order passed under Section 9-A (2) of U.P.C.H. Act has been set aside. There is also no dispute about the fact that revision filed by the petitioner has been dismissed vide order dated 07.01.2003.
10. In order to appreciate the controversy involved in the matter, the perusal of order dated 07.01.2003 passed under section 9-A(2) of U.P.C.H. Act will be relevant which is as under:-
"???????? ??????? ??????? ????? ????????????
??? 98 ???? 9A(2) ????? ???? ???? ????? ???? ????? ?????, ????? ????? ??????
???? 07.01.2003 ???????? ??????? ???????, ????? ?????- ?????, ???? 9A(2) ??? ???? ?????? 07.01.2003 ??? ???? ???? ????? ???
?? ??? ??? ???? ????? ??? ???? ??? ????? ????????? ???? ????? ?? ???? ?(2) ?? ???????? ?? ???? ?? ??? ??? ???? ?? ?? ????? ????? ?? ???? ??? 335/4-0-0 ?? ?? ???? ??? ?? ????? ????? ??? ??? ???? ??? ????? ?? ???? ?? ???????? ?? ?.?? ???? ???? ????
?????????? ?.?.?? ?????? ?? ????? ????? ??? ??????? ?? ??????? ????? ?????? 03.03.1997 ?? ???? ??? 338/4-0-0 ?? ???? ???????? ????? ?? ???? ?????? 10.12.96 ?? ?????? ???? ??? ??? ???? ????? ?? ?? ???????? ?? ??????? ?????? ?? ????? ?????? ?? ???????? ?? ???? 122B(4) ??.??.???.? ???? ?? ??? ???? ???? ????? ???????? ?? ??? ???? ???? ?? ??????? ????? ????? ???? ????? ?? ???????? ?????? ?????? ?? ?? ??? ????? ?????? ???? ???
?????? ? ?????? ???? ?? ????? ???? ????? ???? ????? ?????? ???????? ?????? ?????? 14.12.2002 ?? ????????? ???? ???????? ?? ???? ?? ????? ?? ???? ?? ???? ?????? ?? ?????? ???? ?? ????? ???? ???? ??? ???? ?? ????????? ???? ?????? ???? ?? ???? ?? ???
???? ?????? ???? ??????? ?? ???? ????? ??? ?? ???? ????? ????? ????? ???? ???????? ???? ?? ???? ???335 ?? ??? ???? ?? ????? ????? ???? ????? ???? ????? ????? ????? ????? ?? HS ?? ?? ????? ????? ??? ???? ????? ????? ????? ???? ?????? ??????? ???????? ???? 355/5-0-0 ?? ?????, ??? ???? ?? ????? ??? ???? ???? ?? ?????? ???????? ?????? ???? ?? ??? ???? ?????? ???? ??????? ?? ????? ?? ???? ?? ??? ?? ?? ??? ?? ??? ???-
???????? ???????? 35(1)97-1(40)/95-262??-1 ? ?? ???? 45 ? 41 ?? ??? ????? ?? ?? ??? ????? ?????? ?? ?? 03 ??? 1995 ?? ????? ???????? ????? ???????? ???? ???? ?? ?????? ????? ?????? ???????? ?? ?? ???? ?? ??? ????? ? ???? ???? ??? ??? ??????????? ?? ???? ???? ????????? ???? ???????? ???? ?? ????? ?? ?? ??????? ???????? ?? ???? ?? ??? ?? ??????? ??? ??? ???????? ?? ?????? ?? ??? ???? ?????? ?????? ???? ?? ????????? ???????? ?? ?????? ???? ???? ????????? ??? ??? ???? ???? ?? ???-
????
????? ????? ??? ? ??? ????? ?? ???? ??? 335/4-0-0 ?? ??? ???? ??- ????? ???? ??? ???? ????? ??? ???? ??? ????? ?? ??? ???? ??????? ???? ???
???????? ??? ???????? ????? ????? ???
?? ??
?????? 07.01.2003
11. The finding of fact recorded by the Consolidation Officer vide order dated 07.01.2003 as quoted above fully demonstrate that notices were issued to the gram pradhan/ State as well as opportunity was given to pradhan/ State to contest the proceeding. The finding further demonstrate that petitioner was found in possession over the plot in question accordingly, Consolidation officer has passed the order for recording the name of petitioner over the plot in question which was recorded as "Usar land" in the revenue record. It is also material to mention that no appeal under Section 11 (1) of U.P.C.H Act or Revision under Section 48 of U.P.C.H Act was filed by the Gaon sabha/ State against the order dated 07.01.2003 passed by Consolidation Officer under Section 9-A (2) of U.P.C.H. Act, as such order passed under Section 9-A (2) of U.P.C.H. Act cannot be set aside in the proceeding under Rules 109-A (3) of U.P.C.H. Rules. It is settled principle of law that procedure prescribed under the law is to be followed in that particular manner otherwise the proceeding/ orders will be illegal.
12.So far as exercise of jurisdiction by Consolidation Officer granting benefit of Section 122-B (4-F) of U.P.Z.A.& L.R$. Act is concerned, the same is correct exercise of jurisdiction by consolidation officer in view of the ratio of law laid down by this Court in the case of Satpal (Supra). Paragraph No.12 of the judgment rendered by this Court in Satpal (Supra) will be relevant for perusal which is as under:-
"12. So far as the finding recorded by respondents- 1 and 2 that the consolidation authorities have no jurisdiction to confer right under Section 122 B (4 F) of UP Act No. 1 of 1951 is concerned, it is incorrect. A perusal of Section shows that section originally added gives a presumption that the person in occupation who falls in the category as enumerated shall be deemed to be admitted as sirdar. Section is further amended by UP Act No. 11 of 2002 and it has been further clarified that it shall not be necessary for such occupant to institute a suit for declaration of his right as bhumidhar with transferable right in that land. Thus the right is conferred by the statute and not by any authority. If the right is proved then it is well within the jurisdiction of the consolidation authorities to record the name of any person. In this case right of the petitioner is not proved. Inasmuch as no documentary evidence has been filed to prove his possession while the oral evidence was contradictory of the resolution passed by the Land Management Committee. Thus no relief can be granted to the petitioner."
13. Considering the aforementioned facts and circumstances of the case, the impugned order dated 29.12.2010 passed by respondent No.1/ Deputy Director of Consolidation and order dated 18.01.2006 passed by the respondent No.2/Settlement officer of Consolidation are liable to be set aside and the same are hereby set aside.
14. The writ petition stands allowed and order dated 07.01.2003 passed by Consolidation Officer under Section 9-A (2) of U.P.C.H. Act as well as order dated 03.05.2003 passed by consolidation officer under Rule 109-A of U.P.C.H. Rules are hereby affirmed. The authorities are directed to correct the entry of the plot in question in pursuance of the order of the Consolidation Officer dated 07.01.2003 and 03.05.2003 forthwith
15. No order as to costs.
Order Date :- 17.4.2025 PS*