Allahabad High Court
Bhagwant Education Development ... vs Deputy Director Of Consolidation ... on 1 August, 2022
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Court No. - 30 Case :- WRIT - B No. - 1718 of 2022 Petitioner :- Bhagwant Education Development Society Respondent :- Deputy Director Of Consolidation Muzaffarnagar And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Arjun Singhal Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Kaushal Kishore Mani Hon'ble Chandra Kumar Rai,J.
Heard Sri Arjun Singhal, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Kaushal Kishore Mani, learned counsel for the Gaon Sabha and the learned standing counsel for respondent nos. 1,2,3 & 5.
The brief facts of the case are that the plots in dispute were purchased by the petitioner through different sale deeds in the year 1999 from recorded tenure holder and the name of the petitioner - educational institution was recorded in the revenue records on the basis of sale deed. A declaration under Section 143 of the U.P. Z.A. & L.R. Act was granted in favour of the petitioner by the Sub-Divisional Officer concerned declaring the land as non-agricultural. Thereafter, proceeding under Section 9-A(2) of the U.P. C.H. Act has been initiated in an ex parte manner in the year 2022 in respect to the plots which were purchased by the petitioner in the year 1999, wherein the Consolidation Officer in utter violation of principle of natural justice, has allowed the objections, expunged the petitioner's entry and ordered to record the disputed plots as the state land. Against the order of the Consolidation Officer, petitioner filed an appeal under Section 11 of the U.P. C.H. Act along with a stay application, but the appellate court has not passed any order on the stay application, hence this writ petition.
Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the appeal under Section 11 of the U.P. C.H. Act has been filed along with a stay application against an ex parte order of the Consolidation Officer, taking various grounds, that the provisions of the Act will not apply and further the petitioner is running an educational institution in the plots in question in which the students are getting technical education, as such, the entries cannot be expunged without affording opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. In support of his submission, he placed reliance on a decision of this Court in Suresh Kumar and Another vs. D.D.C. and 6 Others, in Writ B No.2000 of 2021, wherein this Court has held that opportunity of hearing must be afforded to the recorded owner even the land is alleged to be Usar land. He further submitted that petitioner's educational institution are running over the disputed plots in which more than 5000 students are getting education. Counsel for the petitioner further submitted that order of Consolidation Officer dated 30.6.2022 has caused serious civil consequences and prejudice to petitioner. He further submitted that even issues were not framed by the Consolidation Officer and objection was decided in arbitrary manner.
On the other hand, counsel for the respondents have submitted that the Consolidation Officer while deciding the objection has issued notice and passed the order, in accordance with law, as such, no interference is required and the petitioner has a remedy of filing of an appeal, which he has already done so.
I have considered the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and after perusal of the records, I find that the petitioner - educational institution has already been recorded in the revenue records since 1999 and even the land was also declared as non-agricultural in a proceeding under Section 143 of the U.P. Z.A. & L.R. Act, as such, without affording reasonable opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, entries cannot be expunged, in view of the ratio of law laid down by this Court in Suresh Kumar (supra), as such, petitioner is entitled to interim protection during pendency of appeal.
The Apex Court in a case reported in 1983 UPLBEC page no. 519 (Mool Chand Yadav and Another vs. Raja Buland Sugar Company Ltd., Rampur & Others) has held that if the order under appeal has serious civil consequences, then operation of that order must be suspended during pendency of appeal.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case as well as ratio of law laid by the Apex Court as well as by this Court, this writ petition is disposed of with the following directions:-
(i) The Settlement Officer (Consolidation) / respondent no.2 is directed to decide the pending Appeal No.197 of 2022 (Computerized No.20225409553011204) expeditiously, preferably within a period of 6 months from the date of production of the certified copy of the order, in accordance with law, after affording opportunity of hearing to both parties;
(ii) For a period of 6 months or till the disposal of the appeal, whichever is earlier, the status quo as prevailing today in respect to the nature and possession of the plots in dispute shall be maintained.
With the aforesaid observations, this writ petition is finally disposed of.
Order Date :- 1.8.2022 C.Prakash