Allahabad High Court
Basdev And 2 Others vs State Of U.P. And 6 Others on 29 August, 2022
Author: Vivek Varma
Bench: Vivek Varma
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Court No. - 51 Case :- WRIT - B No. - 2002 of 2022 Petitioner :- Basdev And 2 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 6 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Saroj Kumar Yadav Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Bhupendra Kumar Tripathi Hon'ble Vivek Varma,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri Mukul Tripathi, learned Standing Counsel for respondent nos. 1 to 6 and Sri Bhupendra Kumar Tripathi, learned counsel for respondent no. 7.
The instant writ petition has been filed seeking following reliefs:
"I. Issue, a writ of certiorari thereby calling for records and to quash the impugned order dated 29.10.2020 passed by the Respondent no. 4/ Consolidation Officer Kiratpur, Disrict- Jaunpur, in Case No. 358 of 2020-21 (State of U.P. Vs. Basdev & others) with regard to Gata no. 3819M area 0.15 dismil of Chak No. 484, under section 9A(2) of U.P.C.H. Act, by which the Consolidation Officer Kiratpur, District- Jaunpur has directed to expunge the name of petitioners from aforementioned Gata and thereafter the same may be recorded as 'Talab', in the revenue records in violation of principle of natural justice and on extraneous consideration (contained as Annexure No. 1 to this writ petition).
II. Issue, a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus, directing the respondents not to interfere in the peaceful enjoyment of the petitioners over Gata No. 3819M admeasuring area 0.15 dismil of Chak No. 484 situated at Village Suris, Paragana Anguli, Tehsil Shahganj, District Jaunpur."
The averments made in the writ petition reveal that Gata No. 3819M, area 0.15 dismil of Chak No. 484, situated at Village Suris, Tehsil Shahganj, District Jaunpur was inherited by the petitioners from their ancestors. An exparte report dated 01.10.2020 was submitted by the Consolidator to the Assistant Consolidation Officer. On the basis of the said report, a case was registered under Section 9A(2) of the Consolidation of Holdings Act, being Case No. 358 of 2020-21, fixing 29.10.2020. After receipt of the aforesaid report, the Consolidation Officer by the impugned order dated 29.10.2020 approved the report of the Assistant Consolidation Officer for expunging the name of the recorded tenure holders in the revenue record which has been challenged in the instant writ petition.
The grievance of the petitioners is that the Consolidation Officer has passed the impugned order exparte without recording his satisfaction that the notices were duly served upon the petitioners or not. The report was on a printed format which shows total non-application of mind.
Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that in similar facts the identical matters came up before this Court for consideration in Writ-B No. 561 of 2021 (Makhanchu Vs. State of U.P. and 3 Others), Writ-B No. 575 of 2021 (Lautu Ram & Another Vs. State of U.P. and 3 Others), Writ-B No. 578 of 2021 (Arjun Vs. State of U.P. and 3 Others) and Writ-B No. 2000 of 2021 (Suresh Kumar & Another Vs. DDC & 3 Others). Aforesaid writ petitions were allowed on the same day considering the illegality in the impugned order passed by the Consolidation Officer. Copies of the said orders are annexed with the present petition. In view of the orders passed in the aforesaid petitions, counsel for the petitioners submits that the instant writ petition may also be allowed.
Sri Mukul Tripathi, learned Standing Counsel, submits that no useful purpose would be served by keeping this writ petition and calling for counter affidavit. The matter may be remitted to the Consolidation Officer to pass an appropriate order after providing opportunity of hearing to the petitioners and other affected persons.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the considered view that the Consolidation Officer has committed manifest error in passing the ex-parte order dated 29.10.2020, expunging the name of the recorded tenure holders on the same day placing reliance upon the report dated 01.10.2020. No satisfaction has been recorded that the notice has been duly served upon the affected persons. There is no justification to expunge the long standing entry made in favour of the recorded tenure holders, which amounts to depriving them of their valuable legal rights over the property in question, which cannot be done without following the provisions of law.
Resultantly, the instant writ petition succeeds and is allowed. The impugned order dated 29.10.2020 is quashed. The matter before the Consolidation Officer is restored, which was initiated on the basis of the report dated 01.10.2020 passed by the Assistant Consolidation Officer. Parties are relegated before the Consolidation Officer to contest the matter and adduce their evidences in support of their defence to protect their right and title over the property in question.
The Consolidation Officer shall proceed to decide the matter expeditiously, preferably within a period of six months from the date of production of certified copy of this order, in accordance with law, by a reasoned and speaking order. Petitioners are directed to appear before the Consolidation Officer concerned on or before 20.09.2022.
Order Date :- 29.8.2022 SKT/-