Allahabad High Court
Ramji Maurya vs Commissioner, Varanasi Region And 6 ... on 22 October, 2019
Author: Anjani Kumar Mishra
Bench: Anjani Kumar Mishra
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Reserved Court No. - 9 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 24835 of 2019 Petitioner :- Ramji Maurya Respondent :- Commissioner, Varanasi Region And 6 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ram Raj Prajapati,Jay Prakash Narayan Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Manoj Kumar Yadav Hon'ble Anjani Kumar Mishra,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.
The petitioner, by means of this writ petition has sought a writ of certiorari for quashing an order dated 28.10.2002, passed by the Nayab Tehsildar, rejecting a restoration application as not maintainable and the order dated 08.05.2019, whereby the consequential revision has been dismissed.
The facts of the case briefly stated are that the petitioner and respondents 6 and 7 are alleged to have been purchased certain land from one Samratthi, the recorded tenure holder, thereof.
On the basis of the sale deed they applied for mutation, which was ordered on 03.07.2002.
It appears that on 22.10.2002, a recall application was filed for recall of the mutation order. This application was allowed on 28.10.2002, the mutation order in favour of the petitioner was set aside and the proceedings were ordered to abate under Section 5 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act.
The same day, the petitioner filed an application for recall of this order, which was rejected on 28.10.2002 and the consequential revision has also been dismissed vide order dated 08.05.2019.
The contention of counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner being bona-fide purchaser for consideration had rightly been ordered to be mutated over the land subject matter of the sale deed. This order was wrongly recalled and the proceedings ordered to abate.
Under the circumstances, the petitioner filed a recall application on 28.10.2002 for recall of the order abating the mutation case, the same day which was rejected without perusing the record. It is also sought to be contended that the notification under Section 4(2) of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act was dated 17.09.2003 and therefore, the proceedings could not have been ordered to abate, as consolidation operations commenced after mutation had been ordered.
In this regard, reliance has been placed upon a question-answer and the extract of the proceedings book maintained in accordance with the provisions of Section 54 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act read with Rule 62 thereof.
I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record.
In my considered opinion, the CH Form 29 relied upon by the petitioner is of no consequence. The proceedings book in CH Form 29 is maintained to record the proceedings of meetings of the Consolidation Committee. It appears that the first meeting of the Consolidation Committee was held on 17.09.2003. This date is of no consequence because what is relevant, in the case at hand, is the date of notification under Section 4(2), whereby the unit where the land in question is situated was brought under consolidation operations.
Proceedings of the Consolidation Committee will necessarily take place after a notification under Section 4(2) has been issued, bringing the unit under consolidation operations.
Proceedings, pending at any stage, which entail declaration of right or interest in any land lying in an area covered by notification under Section 4(2), abate under Section 5(2) of the Act. The mutation case has been ordered to abate vide order dated 28.10.2002 on the ground that the mutation order had been fraudulently obtained during the currency of consolidation operations post issuance of a notification under Section 4(2) of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act.
Since the petitioner has not been able to show that the notification under Section 4(2) of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act was issued after the mutation order had been passed in favour of the petitioner on 03.07.2002, the impugned orders cannot be said to be vitiated in any manner.
Along with a supplementary affidavit, the petitioner has annexed copy of Notification No. 2973-GO-361-60-90 dated 03.05.2001, which is stated to have been published in the Gazette dated 09.06.2001. It is however his case that the notification was published in the unit on 17.09.2003.
The only judgment relied upon by counsel for the petitioner relevant for the purposes of the instant writ petition is Charan Singh Vs. Deputy Director of Consolidation, Muzaffarnagar and others, 2007 (102) RD 29. In paragraph 3 of this judgment, it has been held that a notification under Section 4(2) of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, to be effective, needs to be published : (1) in the Official Gazette. (2) in a daily newspaper having wide circulation in the area, and (3) also published in each unit, in such manner, as may be considered appropriate.
From the material available on record, it is clear that the notification had been published in the Official Gazette on 09.06.2001. A bald allegation has been made that the notification dated 03.05.2001 published in the Official Gazette on 09.06.2001 was published in the unit on 17.09.2003. However, there is no material available on record in this regard. There is no categorical averment that the notification under Section 4(2) was not intimated to the tenure holders, by publication in a newspaper having wide circulation in the area.
It has also not been stated as to the manner in which publication was ensured in the unit because the Act provides for its publication in such manner as may be considered appropriate.
In the absence of the above noted material particulars, the contention of counsel for the petitioner cannot be accepted.
There is yet another aspect of the matter. The requirement of publication in the unit is purely for the purposes of providing information to the general public. It is not, in my opinion, a condition precedent and in fact an Act, consequent to the publication of the notification under Section 4(2) or 4A(2) of the Act in the Gazette.
Consequential action, if desirable but not taken, cannot vitiate or reduce the rigour of a valid notification under Section 4, duly published in the official Gazette.
In Charan Singh (supra) the facts were such which necessitated the view taken therein as information to the land holders was crucial. Such is not the position in the case at hand. The petitioner can still obtain mutation from the consolidation Courts, which shall be in regular proceedings, contrary to summary proceedings under Section 34 of the Land Revenue Act, whose orders are subject to regular title proceedings in view of Section 40A of the Land Revenue Act.
Under the circumstances, this Court does not find it a fit case for interference on a highly technical point, which in any case, in view of the foregoing discussion, is not found to be established, conclusively.
The writ petition is accordingly, dismissed.
Order Date :- 22.10.2019 Mayank